Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Kilmarnock Gas and Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hove Extension) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

AWARDS (REVISION).

Mr. STEPHEN: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions the conditions necessary for an applicant to have his claim to a pension reopened under the scheme for the revision of erroneous awards?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): In cases where a final award has been made, to which I presume the hon. Member is referring, the pensioner has his statutory right of appeal. Subject thereto the award is final and cannot be made the subject of further review on application by the man. He has, however, a right to medical treatment, as and when that may be certified to be necessary for the condition of disablement resulting from his war service. The only cases dealt with by way of further grant under special sanction are those in which, exceptionally, following such a course of treatment and observation, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is found that the final award was erroneous as involving a serious and permanent under-estimate of the extent of the disablement experienced by the man.

EMIGRATION (ASSISTANCE).

Mr. STEPHEN: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether there are any voluntary funds to which an ex-soldier in receipt of a pension may apply for assistance to help him to emigrate to the United-States of America?

Major TRYON: I regret that I have no information as to the voluntary funds which may be available for this particular purpose.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of giving some help in these cases, in view of the great disability imposed on a man who has friends in the United States but not in the Dominions and who is, possibly, on the parish council here?

Major TRYON: There may be cases where it would be possible for friends to give help of this kind but I do not think that would be as good an object for State funds as helping emigration within the British Empire.

Mr. STEPHEN: Are the circumstances of a man who has given service to his country not a matter of great importance?

Major TRYON: Certainly and we do all we can fairly to carry out the wishes of the House in compensating them for any war disablement.

GAMING MACHINES (PROSECU TIONS, LONDON).

Colonel DAY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any prosecutions for keeping gaming machines have been instituted in the Metropolitan Police area during the previous 12 months against small shopkeepers whose shops are frequented by children?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, DURHAM.

Mr. WHITELEY: 4.
asked the Home Secretary how much of the money spent in workmen's compensation in Durham County during May, 1925, shown under the heading costs of production other than wages, was devoted to the payment of fatal claims, non-fatal claims, medical fees, and lawyers' expenses?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret I am not able to furnish the information asked for.

Mr. WHITELEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give the information, if I put down a further question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid not. Owing to the method by which these returns are now made, the actual information asked for by the hon. Member is, I fear, not given in the returns.

Mr. BATEY: Would it not be possible to show how much is put into expenses for the purpose of paying compensation under the heading of costs other than wages?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think, if it were specially asked for, I could probably get that information for the hon. Member.

PRISONERS (MEDICAL AND SURGI- CAL TREATMENT).

Mr. HAYES: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of persons who were removed from prisons to outside hospitals in order that operations might be performed during the year 1926, and the number of cases
of childbirth, if any, that took place inside prisons including Broadmoor, during the year 1923?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 98 persons were removed from prison during 1926 under Section 17 (6) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, for surgical or medical treatment which could not be given in prison. The number of cases of childbirth in prisons (including two in the Aylesbury Borstal Institution) during the same year was 18. The corresponding figures for Broadmoor are, none and one.

Mr. HAYES: Would an amendment of the law be necessary in order that cases of this character might be treated outside prison?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If it were compulsory, yes, an amendment of the law would be necessary. There is always a prerogative, which in certain cases is exercised, and in certain cases is not exercised.

Colonel DAY: How many of these 98 people were on parole and how many in custody during the operations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot say without notice. There is provision under the Act, as the hon. Member knows, for removal to hospital for the purposes of surgical or medical treatment which cannot be given in prison, and there are arrangements made for the persons concerned to go back to prison when the operation is over.

PROBATIONARY OFFICERS.

Mr. HAYES: 6.
asked the Home Secretary how many agents of voluntary societies have been appointed probationary officers since the Criminal Justice Act came into force; and how many of these have been appointed by probation committees without the post being advertised or the candidates interviewed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that this information is not available. I hope to be able later in the year to give the hon. Member information in reply to the first part of his question.

Mr. HAYES: Will the recommendations of the Departmental Committee be followed in regard to advertising these posts?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the hon. Member will leave that point over until he asks his final question on the subject?

PARKHURST PRISON (LECTURES AND CONCERTS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 7.
asked the Home Secretary what is the explanation of the considerable reduction in the average number of convicts in Parkhurst Prison attending lectures and concerts from the year 1925–26 to the year 1926–27?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Attendance at lectures and concerts is not being allowed to convicts who are unlikely to benefit thereby or who are ineligible under prison regulations.

ACCIDENT, CANADA DOCK, LIVERPOOL.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SEXTON:—
To ask the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of a fatal accident which occurred to a man named Richard Stringer, employed on the s.s. "Liberty Clo," Canada Dock, Liverpool, owing to a bale of cotton which was being lowered into the hatchway of the barge "Reynolds" by hooks, which slipped from the bale; and, in view of the fact that the use of hooks for such purpose is contrary to Dock Regulation 19, Sub-section (b), will he take the necessary steps to secure in future the observance of such Regulation?

Mr. SEXTON: If it will not inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman, may I be allowed to insert in this Question "Dock Regulation 36" instead of "Dock Regulation 19" as the former has a more direct bearing on the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We shall see how the answer works out. There does not appear to have been any breach of the Regulations in this case. The report I have received from the factory inspector shows that the bale was being held, not by hooks, but by "dogs." I understand that this is the general practice in handling cargo of this kind, and the Conference on Dock Accidents, which sat in 1924, and in which the hon. Member took part, did not recommend any interference with it.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "dogs" is merely a
technical term for hooks and that in this case there was a distinct breach of Regulation 36 which lays down the following conditions:
When the working space in a hold is confined to the square of a hatch, hooks shall not be made fast in the bands or fastening of bales, etc."?
Is it not a fact that in this case there was no other space than the square of the hatch for the man to stand and that he had no room to get out of the way?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Knowing the hon. Member's interest in these matters, I took special care to find out the difference between hooks and "dogs." The hook is a hook in the ordinary sense of the word and is affixed into the rope and used in dealing with certain goods, while "dogs," as the hon. Member knows, are in the nature of clasps. This accident occurred while "dogs" were in use, and no alteration in regard to the use of "dogs" was recommended by the hon. Member's own committee in 1924.

Mr. SEXTON: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this matter had better be discussed behind the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS' RETIRING AGE (MERTHYR TYDFIL).

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the action of the Merthyr Tydfil Education Authority in compelling teachers to retire at the age of 60; and whether, as such a regulation bears with especial severity upon secondary teachers, who enter upon pensionable service later than other teachers, he will inquire into the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): My attention has been drawn to the action of the Merthyr Tydfil Authority. The matter is one which lies within the discretion of the authority, so far as teachers in their employment are concerned, and I do not think that I can justifiably intervene.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the fact that the policy of the education
authorities is contrary to the spirit of the Pensions Act, 1925, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with them to modify that policy?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think it would be possible to say that the Pensions Act, 1925, either in terms or by implication interfered with the discretion of the authorities in regard to the engagement of their teachers which was provided for in the Act of 1918, or rather in the Act of 1921. In view of the provisions of the Act of 1921 giving discretion to the authorities in this matter, I do not think I have any right to interfere.

POST-PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Major HILLS: 12
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) what steps he is taking to require local education authorities to provide some form of post-primary education for all children over the age of 11 on the lines recommended by the Consultative Committee in its Report on the Education of the Adolescent;
(2) what administrative changes will be necessary to give effect to the recommendation that post-primary education should be of diverse types suited to the varying capabilities and future employment of the children, and should be given in selective and non-selective central schools as well as in those schools now classed as secondary, having regard to the fact that under the existing Education Acts authorities for elementary education can only establish and administer central schools but not secondary schools;
(3) whether he intends to take steps to put recommendation 34 of the Report into effect, namely, to introduce legislation to transfer to authorities for higher education all the powers and duties of the authorities for elementary education only in areas with less than a certain minimum standard of population, and to vest with full powers in respect of higher education the authorities in areas with more than that minimum standard; and, if so, what minimum standard does he propose?

Lord E. PERCY: As my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in the Debate on Tuesday, the provision of post-primary education for all children over 11 has been the
main object of the Board's policy during the last 2½ years. The first step taken in this direction was the issue in March, 1925, of Circular 1358 calling for programmes from local authorities and, as I have stated, the trend of those programmes, which are now being actively carried out, corresponds closely with the recommendations of the Consultative Committee. Last March I took the further step of urging local authorities, through the County Councils Association, to undertake systematic surveys of the steps necessary in their areas
to develop a course of study and standards of teaching which will make it worth while for the average child to continue his or her education up to the age of 15.
The questions as to the scope and curriculum of schools and as to the present distribution of function as between different authorities, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, are under the constant consideration of the Board and local authorities, but their solution must inevitably be gradual. I think it has escaped the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend that Recommendation 34 of the Consultative Committee is not a recommendation for immediate action and must be read together with Recommendations 31 to 33.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that carrying out this reorganisation means considerable capital expenditure and alteration in buildings; and is he prepared to consider financial proposals involving calls for money from the Board to carry out these schemes?

Lord E. PERCY: Certainly, we are prepared to consider any proposals, but the point of the present situation is that I have already got the three-year programmes, all of which tend in this direction. If any local authority wished to put up to me a supplementary proposal, they would have, first, to undertake a further survey, which I have asked them to undertake. When I see the results of these surveys, I shall be glad to consider the situation again.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS, CHESTER.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 15.
asked the Minister of Health on what date he gave
his approval to the Chester City Council's proposal to increase the rents of tenants of houses who take in lodgers; and when the proposed increase took effect?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The Chester City Council were informed on 5th July last that I raised no objection to their proposal. It is understood that their proposals will have effect from an early date in August.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Will my right bon. Friend press this policy upon other local authorities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think I am called upon to do that.

RURAL WORKERS ACT.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 18.
asked the Minister of Health what are the number of county councils and the number of rural district councils who have schemes sanctioned by him for the operation of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act; and how much money has been applied for by county councils and how much by rural district councils for the working of this Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Schemes under the Act submitted by 40 county councils and five rural district councils have so far been sanctioned. I have already approved applications in these cases, covering upwards of 2,600 houses. One county council (Devon) have applied for, and been granted sanction to, a loan of £6,000 for the purposes of the Act. No other similar applications have yet been received either from county councils or rural district councils.

Mr. EVERARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to publish the list of the councils concerned and circulate it to the Press?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider that suggestion.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if he sanctioned more of the rural district councils' schemes, the Act would be more operated by them than is being done by the county councils?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am giving every attention to the rural district councils' schemes.

SUBSIDY.

Mr. MACKINDER: 20.
asked the Minister of Health if the housing subsidy is to continue after September; and, if so, will it be at the present rate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The housing subsidy will continue after September. The rates of Exchequer contributions under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 payable in respect of houses completed between the 1st October, 1927, and the 1st October, 1928, are set out in the Housing Acts (Revision of Contributions) Order, 1926, the draft of which was approved by Resolution of this House on 2nd December last.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will special consideration be given to any case where houses were commenced and for various reasons will not be completed by the date referred to in the Order.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I have no power to vary the Order.

ARREARS OF RENT (REMISSION SHEFFIELD).

Mr. HASLAM: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many occupiers of houses owned by the municipality of Sheffield are in arrears with their rent, and that the County Borough Council of Sheffield are making large remissions of these arrears; and if he has received a Report from his inspectors on the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no recent information as to the arrears rents of tenants of houses erected by the Sheffield City Council beyond that reported in the Press. My Department is only directly concerned with rents of houses erected under the Housing Act of 1919. The last audited accounts furnished by the council are for the year to 31st March, 1926, and in those accounts the net rental income in respect of houses erected under the Housing Act of 1919 was shown as £52,530. The amount written off in the year as irrecoverable was £529 and the balance of rents uncollected at the end of the year was £2,792.

Sir BASIL PETO: Does my right hon. Friend not see that this practice of the local authorities of remitting the rents of houses which in effect belong to the ratepayers, which rents ought to go to the relief of the rates, means a fresh imposition on the rates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That must be so.

Mr. PALING: Does not the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman prove that there were no large remissions of arrears in this case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it proves that there were no large remissions of arrears in the particular year to which I referred.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that where there are arrears of rent remitted in regard to houses built under the 1919 Act, a good deal of the charge may come on the Exchequer, and not on the ratepayers at all?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that is what I said, but it is only in regard to the 1919 Act houses.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Will my right hon. Friend take what steps he can to prevent this sort of thing?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Any remission of rents under the 1919 Act would have to come before me and receive my sanction.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Was it not the case that provision was made under circumstances over which nobody had any control for rents, which could not be collected, in the financial arrangements originally made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that there were any special circumstances in Sheffield which differentiated it in that respect from other towns.

"BLACK WIDOW" SPIDER.

Colonel DAY: 16.
asked the Minister of Health whether the attention of the officers of his Department has been drawn to a small black spider, known to entomologists as Latrodectus mactans, and commonly called the Black Widow or Shoebutton, which has been introduced from Oriental ports into North America concealed in fruit and lumber, and has caused over 20 deaths during the last month; and whether any precautions are being taken by his Department to prevent specimens of these insects being brought into Great Britain?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, the spider known as Black Widow is indigenous in North America. I am not aware of any authentic case of fatal results ensuing from its bite. As regards the second part, I am advised that there is no record of the Black Widow ever having been introduced into Great Britain. There appears therefore to be no need for special precautions against its appearance.

APPROVED SOCIETIES.

Mr. PALIN: 17.
asked the Minister of Health whether, and to what extent, he is prepared to take responsibility for the acts of an approved society, acting as agent for the Ministry, in the administration of the National Health Insurance and Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that approved societies can properly be described as agents of the Ministry in the administration of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts, but I assume that the hon. Member has a specific case in mind, and if he will furnish me with particulars, I will look into it.

RATING AND VALUATION ACT (ASSISTANT OVERSEERS).

Brigadier-General BROWN: 19.
asked the Minister of Health whether he requires the compensation to be paid to assistant overseers under the Rating and Valuation Act to be submitted to him for his sanction or leaves it as a charge on the rates that can be assessed by a district council concerned without regard to other similar assessments; and what is the average amount imposed on the rates by rural district councils for compensation to their assistant overseers under this Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The assessment of compensation in the circumstances referred to in the question is a matter to be dealt with by the rating authority concerned in accordance with the provisions in the Sixth Schedule to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and does not come before me for decision unless an appeal is made either by the officer affected or by not less than one-third of the members
of the district council concerned. I regret that the information asked for in the last part of the question is not in my possession.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in rural areas by ratepayers at the amount of compensation that some rural district councils are distributing for this purpose, and could he not introduce some system of uniformity?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to be guided by the Act in this matter. If any ratepayers are dissatisfied with the action of the local authorities, they have the remedy in their own hands.

GRAIN SHIPS (PLAGUE INFECTED VERMIN).

Mr. HURD: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether steps are taken to prevent grain passing into consumption from ships which are certified to contain vermin infected with bubonic plague, e.g., certain ships now in or entering the Port of London; and, if not, what is the reason?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second, because there is no evidence that the infection of plague can be conveyed by means of the consumption of grain.

Mr. HURD: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather desirable that this vermin should be crawling over the food of the people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is quite a different question.

LONDON SQUARES (ROYAL COM- MISSION).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 23 and 24.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is able to announce the composition of the Royal Commission on London Squares, whose appointment he foreshadowed recently;
(2) whether he can announce the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on London Squares; and, if so, whether it
will be able to inquire into the question of making arrangements for the opening of various squares and gardens in London to school children during the months of August and September?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The terms of reference of the Royal Commission on London Squares are:
To inquire and report on the squares and similar open spaces existing in the area of the administrative county of London with special reference to the conditions on which they are held and used and the desirability of their preservation as open spaces and to recommend whether any or all of them should be permanently safeguarded against any use detrimental to their character as open spaces, and, if so, by what means and on what terms and conditions.
It seems to me doubtful whether a question such as that mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend would be within these terms of reference.
The composition of the Commission is as follows:

The Most Hon. the Marquess of Londonderry (Chairman).
Alderman C. H. Bird.
Mr. Frank Briant.
Dame Caroline Bridgeman.
Sir George Duckworth.
Sir Howard Frank.
Mr. M. L. Gwyer.
Mr. F. W. Hobbs.
Alderman Sir Henry F. New.
Mr. R. C. Norman.
Councillor the Rev. A. G. Pritchard.
Mr. H. Snell.
Mr. Carmichael Thomas.
Colonel K. P. Vaughan-Morgan.
Mr. I. F. Armer, Secretary.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Has my right hon. Friend considered the question of opening the London gardens? Cannot that come within the competence of this Royal Commission? As it is a matter which raises great interest all over London, will he use his good offices and influence with the people concerned to see if something could be done, both this summer and in the future?

Mr. HARRIS: Owing to the great urgency of this problem, and the fact that some of the squares have already been threatened to be built over, cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a similar
reference as was made to the Bridges Commission, so that there will be an early report? Is that possible.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I had nothing to do with the appointment of the Bridges Commission. As regards the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), I have no reason to suppose that I have any influence in this matter, which is one for private owners.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the Terms of Reference read out by the right hon. Gentleman are only in the direction of preserving the squares and not of opening them up to the people who could use them, and would he consider some slight amendment to the Terms of Reference to allow that aspect of it to be examined by the Commission.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not give a very definite answer on the subject. What I said was that it appeared to me to be doubtful whether this particular question would be within the Terms of Reference, and I think it would be for the Commission themselves to consider that matter and to decide whether or not it was within their purview.

Mr. CRAWFURD: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris)? We are aware that he is not responsible for the Bridges Commission, but can he take such steps as are possible to expedite the Report of this Squares Commission, in view of the urgency of the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As it has nothing to do with me, I cannot take any steps.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman realised what my question was. Would he suggest to this Squares Commission that they should expedite their Report to prevent these squares being built on, in the same way as the Bridges Commission were asked to expedite their Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I did not understand that. Certainly, I will do that.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman put in the terms of reference the question of the opening of these squares?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That would necessitate a fresh submission of the terms of reference to His Majesty.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. AMMON: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that unemployed persons in receipt of relief from the Bristol Board of Guardians are compelled to report and sign twice daily; and whether, seeing that it is impossible under such circumstances for men or women to seek for work, he will recommend the guardians to reconsider their policy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the requirement of this board of guardians, and I understand that they are at present considering whether any modification of that requirement is necessary on the ground that it places an unnecessary obstacle in the way of the obtaining of employment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason why he has instructed the parish council of Bonhill to reduce scales of relief to able bodied unemployed and, if so, what is the amount of reduction involved?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I am informed that at a meeting of the Bonhill Parish Council held on the 4th instant the parish council resolved to reduce the scale of relief to married able-bodied unemployed by one-third and to single, able-bodied unemployed by two-thirds. The reduction was not the result of any recommendation or instruction by the Scottish Board of Health. The action taken by the parish council was fully within their discretion, but any dissatisfied recipient of relief has a right of appeal to the Board.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Am I to understand that the Scottish Board of Health did not instruct the parish of Bonhill to reduce their scale of relief?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that this reduction is due to the circular issued by the Scottish Board of Health advising all parish councils to pay only the unemployment benefit as relief.

Major ELLIOT: No, Sir. It has nothing to do with that. It is a question of a reduction which, I believe, is under the scale of unemployment relief.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Under-Secretary reply to the last part of my question as to what is the amount of the reduction involved?

Major ELLIOT: I think I have given that information given that information in my answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state what amount a married man and his wife and two children now receive in parish relief? Will he state the actual figures?

Major ELLIOT: As the hon. Member knows, the amount of monetary reduction may vary in each particular case. I was asked the amount of reduction involved, and I gave an answer to that question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the fact that the reduction is from £2 per week down to 27s. per week in the case of a man and his wife with a large family?

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. W. BAKER: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that standard benefit was refused to Mr. Clifford Hodge, of 4, Rodney Road, Kings-wood, Bristol; that on receipt of representations from the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) it was found that certain contributions had not been taken into account; and whether an apology has been officially tendered for this mistake?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Mr. Hodge applied for and obtained a new unemployment book in 1924 without disclosing that he had previously held books from 1915 to 1919. The stamps in the earlier books were consequently not brought into account till the fact that they belonged to Mr. Hodge became known owing to further information supplied through the hon. Member. In these circumstances I do not think there is any occasion for a Departmental apology.

ADVERTISEMENTS (TAXATION).

Mr. STEPHEN: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the taxation of advertisements; and whether the Treasury can give an estimate of the amount of money spent in the country on advertisements?

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (for Mr. CHURCHILL): As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Compton) on 15th February last, this matter has already received close examination in the Treasury. As regards the last part of the question, it is stated in the preliminary Report of the 1924 Census of Production that the total receipts from all sources, including advertisements of newspapers, magazines, etc., amounted to £42 millions. The receipts from advertisements are not given separately, nor, of course, would expenditure on hoardings, etc., be included.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FOREIGN TYPEWRITERS.

Colonel DAY: 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of typewriters of foreign manufacture that have been purchased by the Stationery Office since November, 1918, giving the names of the makers of these typewriters and the country of origin, together with the gross amount paid for the same?

Sir G. HENNESSY: As the answer is a long one and contains a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me the number of typewriters of foreign manufacture which have been purchased?

Sir G. HENNESSY: Yes, 124 in 1925–26 and 78 in 1926–27.

Colonel DAY: I asked for the numbers since November, 1918. Is that the whole of the foreign typewriters purchased?

Sir G. HENNESSY: No, I am afraid it is not possible to give details since 1918.

Following is the answer:

It is not possible to give these details since November, 1918, but for the last two
years the total number of typewriters of foreign manufacture acquired, and the gross cost, have been as follows:

In 1925–26, 124 machines were acquired (nine of which were supplied on repayment terms to some authority other than an ordinary Government Department) for £1,959 and 850 old machines.

—
—
Quantity.
Remarks.


1925–26.





Corona
…
Portable
1
Agency Service.


Elliott Fisher
…
E.T.X.12
2



Hammond
…
Mathematical
1



Oliver
…
Brief
55





Brief elite
1



Remington
…
Foolscap
8
Agency Service (1).




Brief
3





Brief Model II.
1
Agency Service.




Portable
8





Noiseless
3





Accounting
6



Royal
…
Foolscap No. 10 hard platen.
2
 Agency Service.




Policy, elite
2



Underwood
…
Foolscap
22





Foolscap pica
2
Agency Service.




18 ins. elite
4





20 ins. elite
1





Portable
2
Agency Service.





124



1926–27.





Elliott Fisher
…
T.2
8



Remington
…
Noiseless
1





Accounting
1
Agency Service.


Royal
…
Foolscap
35
Agency Service (6).




Brief
4
Agency Service (3).


Underwood
…
Foolscap
3
Agency Service.




Brief
25





Portable
1
Agency Service.





78

Note.—Where the words "Agency Service" are inserted, the machines were supplied by the Stationery Office on repayment terms to some authority other than an ordinary Government Department. In such cases it is the practice of the Stationery Office to comply with the reasonable preference of the repaying authority as to the type of machine to be obtained.

CLERICAL CLASSES (OPEN COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many boys and girls it is proposed to recruit to the general and departmental clerical classes of the Civil Service by means of the open competitive examination to be held on the 29th November next; and whether, in determining

In 1926–27, 78 machines were acquired (14 of which were supplied on repayment terms to some authority other than an ordinary Government Department) for £1,021 and 391 old machines.

Following is a detailed list of the machines, showing the makers. The country of origin in each case was the United States.

this number, account has been taken of the effect on the permanent non-pensionable class by recruiting these additional boys and girls?

Sir G. HENNESSY: The number of candidates to be recruited by the examination referred to in my hon. Friend's question has not yet been determined, but, whatever the decision may
be, it will be entirely without prejudice to the promotion of members of the permanent non-pensionable class to the general and departmental clerical classes.

TREASURY OFFICERS' RESIGNATION (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. KELLY: 31.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to make any payment under the Superannuation Acts in the form of compensation, pension allowance, or gratuity to a Treasury official who is resigning his post in order to take up an appointment in the Bank of England?

Sir G. HENNESSY: No, Sir.

SIR FRANK BAINES (PENSION).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it has now been decided to grant a Civil Service pension to Sir Frank Baines; and, if so, upon what grounds?

Sir G. HENNESSY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 22nd and 29th June, and to the Financial Secretary's reply to him of the latter date.

WAR OFFICE.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for War the cost of the personnel of the Army and the cost of the staff of the War Office for the years ending March, 1914 and 1927?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have put into tabular form the provision in Estimates, 1913 and 1926, for the War Office staff and for the Army, and will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the great overstaffing at the War Office, both with officers and men, is becoming notorious?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir, I am not at all aware of that; it is not true.

Following is the table:



Estimates
Estimates



1913.
1926.



£
£


Army—Net cash total of Army Estimates
27, 700, 000*
42, 500, 000


War Office Staff—Pay and allow ances
440,000†
934,000


*Excludes £520,000 provided for Aviation (see page 74, Estimates 1914).


†The pay and allowances for the War Office staff cover attached officers, typists, messengers and cleaners at headquarters and also local audit staff at outstations, but do not cover Metropolitan Police staff on loan to other Government Departments, nor (in 1913) staff for military aeronautics.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

STATISTICS.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state for 1925 and 1926 the production in Great Britain and Northern Ireland of wheat, barley, oats, and potatoes?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The estimated total production of wheat, barley, oats and potatoes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1925 and 1926 was as follows:




Estimated Total Production.




1925.
1926.




Tons.
Tons.


Wheat
…
1,417,000
1,366,000


Barley
…
1,155,000
1,027,000


Oats
…
2,533,000
2,369,000


Potatoes
…
4,731,000
5,377,000

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is preparing an agricultural credit scheme for Wales; and, if so, when it may be expected to mature?

Mr. GUINNESS: No special credit scheme for Wales alone is in preparation, but the scheme, which we are now working out and hope to place before Parliament
next year, will be applicable to Wales equally with the rest of the country.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will that be early next Session?

Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot yet give a date.

Mr. HURD: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for loans, and for what amounts, have been received by the Gillett Committee from farmers' trading societies during last year and this year; and whether he will call for a report from the Committee upon the reasons why these credit facilities are not more largely used by the farming organisations?

Mr. GUINNESS: Two applications were considered by the Committee in 1926 for loans of £2,500 and £10,000, respectively, and one application for a loan of £3,000 has been considered this year. In addition to these applications a number of inquiries for details of the scheme have been received during the period referred to. I will invite the Committee to make a report of the nature suggested.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what steps, if any, have been taken to make these facilities known to farmers' societies?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think they are generally known and that the agricultural co-operative movement is well aware of them.

Commander WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Farmers' Union have ever taken any steps to acquaint their members with the advantages to be obtained?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have no such information.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. ALFRED WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the source of infection of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; and how many cases there have been since the recent period of immunity?

Mr. GUINNESS: No source of infection has yet been discovered in the case of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Kent. There have been four cases in all since the recent period of immunity.

CROWN ESTATE, SWINLEY FOREST (DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has fully considered the leasehold and building projects now contemplated by the Commissioners of Crown Lands in the Swinley Forest district, between Bracknell and Bagshot, which has hitherto been one of the most beautiful open spaces in the country; and whether he can give to the residents in Berkshire and to the public generally some assurance that the amenities of the district, especially trees and other natural forest beauties, and access for the public to this part of Berkshire will be preserved?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have fully considered the proposals for the development of the Crown estate in the Swinley Forest district. The Commissioners have not lost sight of the fact that it is their duty, not only to the general public, but also for the purpose of improving the property under their charge, to preserve the rural amenities of the estate. No public rights exist over the land, but the Commissioners are not proposing at present to exclude the public from the unenclosed parts.

PASSENGER AIR SERVICES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many regular aerial passenger services are now in operation wholly or principally within the British Empire or wholly or principally British-owned in other countries; and on what routes do they operate in both cases?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As the answer is in tabular form I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

There are 15 British-owned passenger air services in regular operation upon the following routes:—

Europe.

London—Paris.
London—Paris—Basle—Zurich.
London—Brussels—Cologne.
London—Ostend.
London—Le Touquet.
Southampton—Guernsey.

Australia.

Perth—Derby.
Charleville—Camooweal.
Cloncurry—Normanton.
Adelaide—Cootamundra.
Broken Hill—Mildura.
Melbourne—Hay.

Canada.

Sioux Lookout—Red Lake.
Haileybury—Rouyn Gold Fields.

Middle East.

Cairo—Basra.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether permission has now been received from the Persian Government for British aeroplanes to fly over Persian territory between Cairo and Karachi; whether the Cairo to Baghdad route is in operation; how often the aeroplanes fly; how many flights have been made since the route commenced; and what number of passengers and weight of mails has been carried?

Sir P. SASSOON: As the answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could the hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of the question, as to whether permission has yet been received?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer is in the negative.

Following is the answer:

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second, third and fourth parts of the question, a regular fortnightly service in each direction between Cairo and Basrah, via Baghdad, came in operation on 27th December, 1926, and on 13th April last was augmented to a regular weekly service in each direction. The total number of flights performed since the inauguration of the service has been 46, all of which have been completed regularly to schedule. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that the number of passengers and weight of mails carried on the stages in which the route is organised by Imperial
Airways was as follows, to the 30th June last:—




Passengers.
Mails.





lbs.


Cairo—Gaza
…
57
518


Gaza—Baghdad
…
44
6,110


Baghbad—Basra
…
71
1,461


Basra—Baghdad
…
95
1,651


Baghdad—Gaza
…
74
6,268


Gaza—Cairo
…
70
5,987

ROYAL AIR FORCE (DEFENCE OF LONDON).

Mr. THURTLE: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to make a statement on the results of the test operations which have just taken place in connection with the aerial defence of London?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Baronet say when he expects to be able to give a statement as to these operations?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am afraid I could not say that now. Of course, a great deal has appeared in the papers.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Baronet say whether, if this had been actual warfare, the population of London would have suffered immense casualties?

Sir P. SASSOON: I must leave that to the hon. Member's imagination.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will a report on the operations be issued?

Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it our practice to tell all the world what we have found out for our own information?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A great many statements have appeared in the Press, and would not an authoritative statement be very valuable?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

WELSH LANGUAGE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to frame regulations making a knowledge of the Welsh language an essential qualification for all new appointments to postal
staffs in the predominantly Welsh-speaking parts of Wales?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): After carefully considering the hon. Member's suggestion I do not think that there are adequate grounds for introducing special regulations for the purpose he has in view.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the noble Lord not think it very discourteous not to have Welsh-speaking civil servants in the areas where the people speak that language?

Viscount WOLMER: In those areas where a knowledge of the Welsh language is necessary we always insist on it. If my hon. Friend has any cases in mind where this is not the case, I will go into them.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the noble Lord not realise that this is not a question of necessity but of courtesy?

Viscount WOLMER: Where it is thought to be desirable we insist on it.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is there any regulation that Welsh Members should know the Welsh language?

EX-SERVICE AUXILIARY POSTMEN (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. THURTLE: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the possibility of allotting to ex-service auxiliary postmen who have completed more than six years' service some proportion of the 50 per cent. of the annual vacancies for permament employment at present set apart for post-War ex-service men?

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that vacancies in the Post Office are set apart for post-War ex-service men, and I would refer him to my reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson) on 25th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that a certain number of vacancies are given to post-War ex-service men?

Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir, they are given to all ex-service men, and ex-service men who fought in the War receive a priority of consideration over those who enlisted subsequent to the Armistice?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Noble Lord aware that his right hon. Friend in reply to a question in this House some time ago, made a statement totally different from the one now given, and will the Noble Lord give us an assurance that auxiliary postmen who are ex-service men with six years' experience will be considered for vacancies?

Viscount WOLMER: Auxiliary postmen who are ex-service men are considered on the same basis as other ex-service men, and I can assure the hon. Member that there is no discrepancy between the statement of the Postmaster-General and that I have just made.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Could the Noble Lord say whether he or his right hon. Friend is giving special attention to the question of improving the conditions of auxiliary postmen?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

STORNOWAY MAIL STEAMER.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 46.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that 6½ hours are allowed under the terms of the mail contract for the journey between Stornoway and the mainland, a distance of only 60 miles, he will take steps to shorten this time allowance, in view of the need for the restoration of the early morning train connection to the south which existed before the War?

Major ELLIOT: I have been asked to reply. The time allowance will require adjustment when a faster boat is put upon the service, but as my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply to the hon. Member's question of 12th April, the expense of providing and running a vessel fast enough to ensure the connection with the early morning train would be unduly heavy and greater than would be justified by the traffic and other conditions of the service. I would point out that the time allowed in the contract for the voyage from Stornoway to Kyle is 6 hours 10 minutes, including provision for a stop Applecross, and that the distance is approximately 70 statute miles.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that on the Sabbath day, 17th July, a Dutch trawler was trawling with the otter trawl in prohibited waters, about 11 miles within the limit and six miles south of Ailsa Craig, and was discovered so trawling by the fishery cruiser "Vigilant," who, however, did not arrest her but arrested the Fleetwood trawler "Alida," who was near the said Dutch trawler; and will he take steps to have the law altered so as to enable foreign trawlers to be subject to the same Regulations as British trawlers?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend is aware of the cases referred to. The Dutch trawler in question was reported under the Trawling and Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 1909, in terms of which she will be prevented from landing a catch at a British port during a period of two months. As the hon. and learned Member is doubtless aware the enforcement against foreign vessels of the law which prohibits trawling in such areas raised difficult questions of international law and the Act of 1909 was passed as an alternative remedy in the case of foreign trawlers.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman get that law altered? Is it not absurd that while Russia has a 12-mile limit for foreign trawlers and America has a 12-mile limit in regard to bootlegging we cannot do anything to protect our own fishermen?

Major ELLIOT: As the hon. and learned Member knows these matters have been subjects for discussion with foreign countries for many years, and we do our best to see that these Regulations may be made applicable and it is only by the consent of foreign countries that this can be done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that this is a question which we have raised here time and again. These foreign trawlers can afford to pay the £100 fine, when they can get away with a cargo of the value of £1,000; consequently, they pay no attention to this matter? Can tale hon. and gallant Gentleman not devise ways and means of withdrawing the certificates in such cases?

HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong question!"

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that John Crewdson, trawl fisherman, Fleetwood, master of the steam trawler "Alida," FD. 192, was, on 17th July, caught fishing in prohibited waters near the south end of Arran on the Clyde Estuary, about six miles from Ailsa Craig, and further was found to have covered or concealed the name letters and the number of the said trawler by painting them out; that the said trawler was 11 miles within the limit; that the sheriff substitute, on convicting him of both offences, said that such offences were frequent and fined the accused £100, with forfeiture of net, for the one offence and £20 for the other; and will he now seek statutory power for the imposition of penalties sufficient to stop such offences?

Major ELLIOT: In this case the supplementary question has come before the main question but the same answer will do for both. My right hon. Friend is aware of the case referred to. There has of late years been a considerable falling-off in the numbers of trawling offences in Scottish waters generally and my right hon. Friend does not consider that legislation for the provision of increased penalties is at present urgently required. The matter will, however, be kept under careful observation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the Under-Secretary noticed that the Sheriff substitute who tried this case, and has tried a considerable number of these cases recently, says that they are very frequent, and does that not show that the penalties are inadequate, especially when compared with foreign countries like Iceland and Denmark?

JUVENILE CRIME (STATISTICS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 59 and 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the number of boys and girls between the age of 14 and 16 who during the past year have been found guilty of any form of crime in Scotland; and the number in 1925, 1924, 1923 and 1922, respectively;
(2) the total number of persons between the ages of 16 and 21 who have been found guilty of any form of crime in the city of Glasgow during the past year; and the number in 1925, 1924, 1923 and 1922, respectively?

Major ELLIOT: As the answers to these questions contain a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The numbers of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 convicted in Scotland during the years 1922 to 1925 were as follows:


—
Boys.
Girls.
Total.


1925
…
…
4,029
237
4,266


1924
…
…
4,103
227
4,330


1923
…
…
3,849
224
4,073


1922
…
…
4,180
238
4,418

The figures for the year 1926 are not yet available.

The numbers of persons between the ages of 16 and 21 convicted in Glasgow during the years 1922 to 1926 were as follows:


—
Males.
Females.
Total.


1926
…
…
7,016
315
7,331


1925
…
…
6,778
279
7,057


1924
…
…
5,427
291
5,718


1923
…
…
5,099
304
5,403


1922
…
…
5,520
397
5,917

FISHERY REGULATIONS (BREACHES).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade under what Statute he proposes to act in suspending a master's Board of Trade certificate for breaches of the fishery Regulations of Scotland?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister): Under Sections 414 and 469 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the Board of Trade may suspend or cancel the certificate of a skipper if it is shown that he has been convicted of an offence. In two cases where there were repeated convictions for breaches of the fishery Regulations, showing a persistent disregard of the law, the certificates of skippers have been cancelled.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of these cases the Regulations have been broken because the man wanted to satisfy
the owners by getting good fishing, and would it not be much better to lay up the boat for six or 12 months, so as to bring the matter home to both owners and captains?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was not the Judge who was responsible for these convictions. It was the Courts of my hon. and learned Friend's country that convicted.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Were not these Regulations originally drafted in order to provide for the suspension of masters' certificates in cases of professional misconduct, bad seamanship, and so on, and not for this alleged infringement of territorial waters?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I do not accept that at all. I think that, if a skipper is guilty of persistent and flagrant breaches of the law, which has been passed by Parliament in the interests of fishing generally, there is a case for the suspension of the certificate.

Mr. THURTLE: Do not the facts brought out by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) show how capitalism drives men to crime?

GLASGOW (PRICE OF GAS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any representation from the Corporation of Glasgow to be allowed to continue the present price of gas; if so, what decision he has arrived at; and when the power to change the present price by the corporation expires?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Officials of the Glasgow Corporation have asked the Board if, in view of the fact that the corporation reads meters continuously instead of quarterly, they would consider making an Order empowering the Corporation to continue to certain consumers the present price of gas until the meter reading next after 31st December, 1927. It was suggested that those consumers whose meters were read late would not, without such an Order, pay the same increased rate of charge as is paid by those consumers whose meters were read immediately after the increased charge was authorised, and that the proposal, if accepted by the corporation and authorised by the Board, would spread the increased charge fairly among all consumer.
No application for an Order has yet been received, and no decision has, therefore, been reached. The Board are prepared to consider an application, if made. Under the corporation's present powers the existing price may be continued to 31st December, 1927.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the City of Glasgow with the corporation's method of dealing with this problem, and will he refuse the corporation the powers sought?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that the way in which the corporation deal with a matter under their control—namely, whether they read their meters continuously or quarterly—is a matter of local government, in which it would be most improper for me to interfere with their discretion.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Corporation of Glasgow to inquire of the neighbouring township of Kirkintilloch how they can produce gas at half the price charged in Glasgow?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think Glasgow is supposed to be self-governed.

COLONIAL TRADE (LONDON AGENCIES).

Viscount SANDON: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is prepared to arrange with the Crown Colonies for the establishment of one central marketing building in London containing the trade and propaganda offices of each Colony?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The possibility of arranging for the centralization of existing and future Colonial trade agencies in a single building or in one street in London was considered by the recent Colonial Office Conference. The conclusion was reached, however, that, until the various Colonial Governments were satisfied from experience that this form of representation was satisfactory, it would be premature to consider any form of centralization.

SIERRA LEONE (SLAVERY).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that by a majority judgment in the full Court of Sierra Leone the legality of slavery is now declared to be recognised throughout the protectorate of Sierra Leone, and that so long as no more force is used than necessary a master may recapture a slave who has run away; and what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take to bring Sierra Leone into line with other British dependencies in making slavery in all its forms wholly illegal?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The text of the judgment has not yet been received in the Colonial Office, but I am asking for it to be sent as soon as possible. Pending its receipt, it is not possible to say how it affects the question.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on behalf of the Government that when the judgment comes, if the facts are as stated in the question, His Majesty's Government will take steps to see that slavery is not allowed to exist in any British dependencies?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been recent legislation in Sierra Leone on this question, and steps were taken. I think a new Ordinance has been in operation about two years. If there appears to be a fault in the drafting of that Ordinance, an Amendment will have to be considered.

IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Sir B. PETO: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Acts, 1919 and 1920, interest at 5 per cent. was payable either from the date of the injury or the date of the decree, which was usually granted within three months from the injury; that the Irish Grants Committee, contrary to the terms of those Acts, is declining to allow interest; and whether, in view of the terms of Lord Dunedin's Report, the Government will give to Irish loyalists the Beale of compensation provided for by the Irish Acts?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to reply. The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, I am informed that the Irish Grants Committee, in arriving at their recommendations, take account in every instance of all the circumstances of each case up to the date of their recommendation and, as my hon. Friend was informed by the Prime Minister on the 17th May, the Government are satisfied that the Terms of Reference as interpreted by the Committee fully carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee over which Lord Dunedin presided.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lord APSLEY: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that W. Manfield, of Southampton, a butcher and carpenter by trade, with a wife and nine children, all of them strong and healthy, applied for an assisted passage to Australia over a year go; that, though not rejected by Australia House, he has been kept waiting all this time; that, whereas he was 38 when he applied, he will soon be 40, and in danger of being told that he is over age for an assisted passage; and whether, seeing that Man-field and his family are the most desirable type of migrant for Australia, he can see his way to assisting in the expedition of their passage?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to reply. I am informed that Mr. Manfield applied to Australia House for settlement under the Western Australian Group Settlement Scheme on 15th February, 1927, giving his age as 44 years. Mr. Manfield was advised that as recruiting for the Group Settlement Scheme was in abeyance he could not be accepted under that scheme until it was reopened. He was also informed that his name had been noted for consideration in connection with any vacancies which may occur amongst the group settlers. It is inadvisable for a family of this size to be assisted to proceed overseas unless adequate arrangements are made for their settlement, but inquiry will be made as to the possibility of this family being nominated by a voluntary organisation who will undertake responsibility for their settlement.

Lord APSLEY: Is there any chance of this case being re-opened in the near future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of that question.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (FISHERMEN).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 58.
asked the Secretary of state for Scotland if the Fishery Board for Scotland has been consulted with reference to the inclusion of fishermen in the new Health Insurance Bill; and whether in-shore and deep-sea fishermen will equally be brought into the Bill?

Major ELLIOT: The general question of dealing with share fishermen in any such legislation is primarily one for the Departments administering the health insurance and contributory pensions scheme, and the Fishery Board has not yet been consulted, but in the framing of any Clauses the Fishery Board for Scotland will, of course, be consulted on any technical questions that may arise. The question of the precise scope of any such provisions will require to be examined carefully, but, so far as Scotland is concerned, I understand that the share fishermen are engaged, generally speaking, in deep-sea fishing.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the Under-Secretary aware that successive Liberal Governments were approached to include these men under the Insurance Act, and they refused to do so?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also consult the fishermen as well as the Board, because they may not want to be included?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the proper way to deal with these trawlers to suspend their certificates?

GENERAL STRIKE (TRADE UNION FINES, TORQUAY).

Commander WILLIAMS: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour how many cases have been brought to his notice of trade unionists in the Torquay area who were fined by their unions for working during the general strike; in how many cases have these fines been remitted; and when was the last case settled?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Eight cases of the kind have been reported to me, in all of which action initiated by my Department has resulted in the fines being remitted. I received an intimation two days ago that the last case had been settled.

Commander WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that in one case, the fine has been outstanding for nearly a year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, in the last case it was outstanding for a considerable time, but it has now been settled.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FOREIGN SHIPS).

Mr. LUMLEY: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Portuguese Government over its flag discrimination decree?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that I am at present unable to add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 12th July on this subject.

ABERAMAN COLLIERY, GLAMORGAN.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that some 1,800 miners have terminated their employment at the Aberaman colliery, Aberaman, Glamorganshire; will he state the reasons given to the Mines Department for the closing of this colliery; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): According to the latest return made to my Department, this colliery was working during the week ended 23rd July with 1,172 persons. I am informed that it closed down temporarily as from 25th July, the reason given being lack of trade. With regard to the last part of the question, I regret that in the circumstances there is no action that I can usefully take in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

FERRY LANE, TOTTENHAM.

Mr. CRAWFURD: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the widening of Ferry Lane, Tottenham?

Captain Viscount CURZON (for Colonel ASHLEY): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on the 9th May last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury). No fresh development has since occurred.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the Noble Lord aware that in this case the Department had apparently given to the Tottenham Council an undertaking to support this scheme provided that it was started within two months of the permission being given; and is he aware that the Depart sent of the Minister of Health is standing in the way by withholding the permission?

Viscount CURZON: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, but I will bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is not the Noble Lord aware of the increasing use of thin road as one of the main roads to Southend, and of the fact that there was a very serious accident a short time ago, and there are likely to be more if this widening is held up?

Viscount CURZON: There have been several serious accidents.

RAILWAY SERVICE, CROYDON.

Mr. W. BAKER: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increasing difficulty presented by road transport, he will approach the Southern Railway Company with a view to improving the suburban train service, especially between Cannon Street and Croydon during the business hours, in order to enable persons living in the neighbourhood of South Croydon to travel by rail instead of by road and to enable the railway company to more successfully compete with the road services?

Viscount CURZON: No complaints have recently been made to my right hon. Friend with regard to the service
between Cannon Street and Croydon during business hours, but, if the hon. Member will furnish him with particulars of the suggestions he has in mind, they will be brought to the notice of the company.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, EAST LONDON.

Mr. W. BAKER: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the traffic congestion which prevails in the East End of London is aggravated by the growing district of Harold Wood, Essex, and the infrequent train service provided by the London and North Eastern Railway Company for the residents in that district; and whether he will refer these matters to the consideration of the London Traffic Advisory Committee?

Viscount CURZON: My right hon. Friend is aware that traffic congestion in the East End of London is aggravated by the extensive building operations going on in outlying districts, including Harold Wood. This problem has already been investigated by the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and is covered by their Report on Travelling Facilities in East London.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

BACON.

Mr. HURD: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the large Army purchases of American bacon while the British bacon industry is depressed for want of steady orders, he will state what is the average difference in price between American and British tenders for bacon; and if efforts have been made to encourage tenders for British bacon which the Army Council could accept?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The ration bacon supplied to the troops at home (which is purchased by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes) is of Canadian origin. That shipped to certain overseas stations is American, although Australian has been purchased when available, and a trial of Canadian (the suitability of which for this purpose is not yet established) is in progress. The extra cost of English over American bacon is at present about 40 per cent. A trial of English bacon for shipment
abroad has been made, and, in view of the promising reports received, it was decided to make a further extended trial if the bacon were obtainable at an acceptable price. The present extra cost is, however, prohibitive.

Mr. HURD: Is that trial now proceeding?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. HURD: Will it last long?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure as to the details of the trial, but I will let my hon. Friend know.

Commander WILLIAMS: When my right hon. Friend is considering the cost of bacon, will he always take into account the very much higher quality of British bacon?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, yes; I am aware that the quality is higher, and that is taken into account.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to take it that there is no truth in the statement, frequently made in this House, that a great deal of the baron supplied to the British Army comes from China?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is no truth in that.

STAFF COLLEGE EXAMINIATION (AGE LIMIT).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the age limit for officers wishing to sit for the Staff College examination presses hardly on those officers who are serving abroad; and if he can do anything to help those whose duties call them abroad, and keep them abroad, at Staff College entrance age?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that an officer can sit for the Staff College entrance examination in whatever part of the world he is stationed.

Sir B. FALLE: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that, if a man is abroad, especially if he is on active service, he does not get the advantage of tuition that he would obtain at home?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: But I cannot bring him back for that purpose.

Sir B. FALLE: Why not extend the age limit in cases, for instance, in which officers are on service in China?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The age limit has been extended quite recently, and next year it is going to be one year older.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DÉTENUS, BENGAL.

Mr. WELLOCK: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the satisfaction created by the release of Mr. Subash Bose, His Majesty's Government can now see their way to advise the release of the other détenus under the Bengal Ordinance?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have made it clear more than once that they are not prepared to interfere with the discretion in this matter of the responsible authorities in India, who are steadily pursuing a policy of release as and when conditions permit.

SPENCER'S HOTEL, MADRAS (CHARGE OF ASSAULT).

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his investigations into the alleged assault on a native at Spencer's Hotel, Madras, are completed; and whether any further information is now available?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir, not yet.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the description "a native" which appears on the Order Paper, and may I ask you whether it is in order to describe one of our fellow-subjects in India, as "a native"? [interruption.] Is it not a fact that in India there is a strict official order that no Indian subject should be described as "a native," and may I ask why he should be so insulted in this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I was not aware that any objection could be taken to this description, but, if the hon. Member wishes to submit any point to me, I will certainly look into it, as it is most desirable that the Question Paper should not be used in any way to give offence to anybody.

Mr. LANSBURY: I submit to you—

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot deal with the point at this moment, but, if the hon. Member will submit to me what he has put in his question, I will certainly look into it.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Does the information so far available tend to show that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) was correct or incorrect?

Earl WINTERTON: The information which has reached me unofficially, and upon which I prefer not to comment until it has been verified by the Government of India, if verification is, indeed, possible at such length of time, tends entirely to contradict the statement.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that there is an official order in India that Indians are not to be described as natives in any official document?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the Noble Lord could answer that supplementary question, for my information?

Earl WINTERTON: I was about to say, when the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) rose to ask a question, that to the best of my belief it is a fact that there is an official order that no civil servant or servant of the Crown in India should refer to an inhabitant of that country as "a native."

Mr. SPEAKER: If that be the case, I am sure that all hon. Members will be glad to follow what has been established officially in India.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: May I ask whether that decision only applies to servants of the Crown, and whether the person on whom this assault was alleged to have been made was not an actual servant of the Crown, and would, therefore, customarily be called a native?

Mr. SPEAKER: The House will be well advised to leave the matter in my hands. I will look into it and will see that the proper course is followed.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: May
I say I intended no reflection? One calls oneself with pride a native of Scotland, and Indians should and do feel an equal pride in calling themselves natives of India.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better not pursue the matter. I have asked the House to leave it in my hands.

Captain EVANS: On a point of Order. May I have permission to ask a supplementary question in regard to the original question on the Order Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have passed that point.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, MADRAS.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any further information as to the strike at Messrs. Massey and Company's factory at Madras; the reason for the strike; the number of workers involved; and the length of time the strike has continued?

Earl WINTERTON: A Report from the Government of India, dated 7th July, states that the strike continued. As regards the last three parts of the question, I have nothing further to add to the reply given to the question by the hon. Member for the Mile End Division of Stepney (Mr. Scurr) on 27th June.

OPIUM CULTIVATION.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will give information as to the estimated acreage under opium poppy in British India during the present year and in 1925–26; and what part of this total acreage refers to areas in the Punjab and outside the United Provinces?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no figure later than 114,198 acres for 1924–25, all in the United Provinces; in addition there was a small area of 1,653 acres in the Punjab Hills.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Where is that opium exported to?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on that. I have on several occasions explained
what the opium policy of the Government of India is, and it has resulted in very great restriction of the area of cultivation. Very careful steps have been taken to prevent misuse of the opium.

CUSTOMS PORTS (DIVERSION OF TRADE). LAND CUSTOMS.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether representations have been received by the Government of India from the Associated Chambers of Commerce of India and Ceylon drawing attention to the loss which is being inflicted upon the Imperial Customs and the trade of British India by the diversion of imports of sugar, silk, matches, and other articles from Bombay, Karachi, and other ports in British India to the ports in the Kathiawar States; whether he can explain the reason of the diversion of this trade from ports under the control of the Imperial Customs services; and whether any steps are being taken by the Government of India to remedy this loss of revenue?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) on 7th July. Following the failure to reach an agreement at the recent conference the Government of India have decided to reimpose the land Customs line which was removed in 1917.

Colonel DAY: Has a full Report been received yet?

Earl WINTERTON: No Report has yet been received.

AUXILIARY AND TERRITORIAL FORCES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. KELLY: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reason for the long delay in the formulation of the views of the hone Government on the findings of the Auxiliary and Territorial Forces Committee; whether he is aware that the matters dealt with by the Committee are considered by a large body of opinion in India as primarily the concern of the Government of India and that the delay in the communication of the home Government's views further delays action being taken by the Government
of India on the Committee's Report; and whether, in view of the importance attached to this question in India, he will give some indication as to when the Secretary of State hopes to be in a position to communicate the views of the home Government on the above Report?

Earl WINTERTON: The views of His Majesty's Government on the Auxiliary and Territorial Forces Committee Report have been communicated to the Government of India.

Mr. KELLY: Can the Noble Lord give any indication as to the statement that has been made to the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: No, certainly not, till the Government of India have had an opportunity of considering the matter.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR.

Mr. EVERARD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements will be made at the War Office during the period when the Secretary of State for War is absent in India?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will act when necessary for the Secretary of State for War during his absence, and the Under Secretary of State for War, the Earl of Onslow, who is Vice-President of the Army Council, will preside at meetings of the Army Council.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what will be the business when the House reassembles?

Mr. CHURCHILL: When the House resumes its sittings on Tuesday, 8th November, we shall begin with a Motion to take the whole time of the House for Government business in the Autumn Session. Then will follow the Report and Third Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill.
On Wednesday, the 9th, we shall take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the Committee
Stage of the necessary Money Resolution. That will continue on Thursday, the 10th.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
On each day, if time permits, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. TREVELYAN: In view of the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Bill is going to be taken on the second day, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that it will be printed very soon?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I said yesterday, the Government have undertaken that it shall be printed and circulated in ample time to allow Members to study it before we meet again in the autumn.

Mr. HARRIS: What procedure is it proposed to follow in the matter of the Lords Amendments to the Trade Unions Bill if there is no agreement? Will the Bill be dropped, or postponed to November?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In no circumstance will the Bill be dropped. It is impossible to forecast at this stage what treatment should be given to the matter in the event of a regrettable difference between the two Houses, but I hope with patience and tact the difficulties will be surmounted.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman's original answer imply that copies of the Bill and of the actuarial statement will be circulated by post to all Members of the House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The ordinary method of circulating Parliamentary Papers when the House is not sitting always works satisfactorily. The Government will certainly see that facilities are given to the full to secure that every Member shall have the information.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the importance of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving Friday as well to the Second Reading?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are already looking a very long way ahead. I think it will be better to see what the position is when we meet.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May we take it that the question of giving Friday is not definitely ruled out?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the whole tenour of my answer indicates that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With regard to the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill which is going to be taken in the autumn, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is going to be in the interests of the landlords or of the tenants?

Mr. SPEAKER: Opinions differ on that point.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on other Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of life House)."—[Mr. Churchill.]

The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 111.

Division No. 307.]
AYES.
[3.54 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis


Apsley, Lord
Gates, Percy
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kont, Dover)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Atkinson, C.
Gower, Sir Robert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Grant, Sir J. A.
Pennefather, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Frederick George


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gunrton, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Berry, Sir George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bethel, A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raine, Sir Walter


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hasiam, Henry C.
Ramsden, E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Brocklebank, C. E R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sandon, Lord


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopklnson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Hume, Sir G. H
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Ht. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jephcott, A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.


Clayton, G. C.
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Templeton, W. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thompson Luke (Sunderland)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Cope, Major William
Lougher, Lewis
Warner, Brigadler-Genwal W. W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Crooksnank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Cunlifte, Sir Herbert
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W, (Carlisle)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macintyre, I.
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
Wells. S. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ellis, R. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elveden, Viscount
Margesson, Captain D.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J
Wolmer, Viscount


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Womersley, W. J.


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Flelden, E. B.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Forrest, W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth



Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nelson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major


Frece, Sir Walter de
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sir George Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charlos H.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoghton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P


Dennison, R.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnlco, H.
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Fenby, T. D.
Mosley, Oswald
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Glbbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windson, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Hougnton-ie-Spring)



Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SMOKING, DIVISION LOBBY).

Major COLFOX: I desire to ask the following question of which I have given private notice: whether it is in order to smoke in the Division Lobby?

An HON. MEMBER: Why do it?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; it is certainly against the Rules of the House to smoke in the Division Lobby and I would ask hon. Members generally to see that the Ride is observed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,

Ayr Burgh (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Protection of Animals (Amendment)

Bill, with an Amendment.

Post Office (Sites) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Birkenhead Extension Bill [Lords],

East Surrey Water [Lords], without Amendment.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMEND- MENT) BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered upon Tuesday, 8th November, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DISARMAMENT.

Mr. TREVELYAN: There are several questions connected with foreign policy about which I have been asked to speak on behalf of the Labour party, and I understand from the Under-Secretary that the Foreign Secretary will be here later.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): My right hon. Friend has been detained, but will be here in a few moments.

Mr. TREVELYAN: It was our original intention to have asked for a detailed discussion of what has been going on at Geneva, but, in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and owing to the unconcluded negotiations, we agree that it would be better to ask for a day for the discussion of the Geneva Conference in the Autumn Session. The Government have intimated their readiness to afford that day, and to-day we do not want to enter into any detailed discussion of what is going on there, and will simply express the hope that it will have some successful issue. In the few words that I will say on that question, I will speak very generally. What I say will apply equally whether our modest hopes with regard to the Geneva Conference are realised or not, and will concern the later discussions on disarmament which are bound to take place, probably beginning before we come back here, at the meeting of the League of Nations, and subsequently at the Disarmament Conference. We believe that any difficulties or disappointments there may be with regard to the Coolidge Conference, any uncertainty there is as to whether there will be any material alleviation of the great armaments throughout the world next year.
those difficulties and disappointments are liable to come because the Government are going the wrong way about it, are beginning at the wrong end. Better relations between the various countries, the obtaining of all-in arbitration must accompany disarmament, and precede it if it is to be of any use, and the Government hitherto have shown themselves opposed to any substantial advance in the direction of all-in arbitration.
Take our relations with the United States, and what we see going on at the Conference at the present time. The basic difficulty of all our negotiations with the United States is that it is assumed there may be war between the two countries at some time or other, and that therefore one cannot allow the other country to get ahead. The other day we pressed the Foreign Secretary with regard to his views as to all-in arbitration with America. We pointed out that France and America had begun discussing the possibility of outlawing war. We quoted an offer from M. Briand, saying that the French were ready to consider outlawing war in company with the United States, and when we pressed the Foreign Secretary upon this, when we asked him why we could not do the same thing, when we pointed out that we already had an Arbitration Treaty with the United States of America, in which most questions were subjected to arbitration, and that that Treaty would come up for revision in 1928, and when we asked him whether when that Treaty came up for revision it would not be possible for the Government to look forward to making it an all-in arbitration Treaty, where both nations would agree that all questions should be argued instead of our going to war, the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was that we had done all we could, as I understood him, that we had outlawed war in our hearts, and that that was all that could be done. It, obviously, is not enough to outlaw war in our hearts. The right hon. Gentleman believes that war is impossible between us and the United States of America. But our emissary at Geneva is acting on the assumption that war between the two countries is possible.
I want to call the attention of the House to another rather remarkable speech which has been made lately by the American Ambassador, Mr. Houghton, in
which he, speaking in America, put forward another idea of understanding between our peoples. I am not arguing in favour of it, and saying that necessarily it is the right line of procedure, but his idea was that there should be a plebiscite among the great peoples of the world—and he was thinking, obviously, of our own people and the Americans—to declare that on no ground would we attack each other for 100 years, and, if ever there were any likelihood of war, both nations should agree that they would not go to war without a plebiscite of their respective peoples. I am not saying that that is a feasible way of getting something like an agreement between our peoples not to go to war, but it shows how the spirit exists in America, and what we want rather to point out is that the conference which the world wants is a conference between M. Briand, Mr. Houghton, Lord Cecil of Chelwood—people who believe in peace, and will get the right relations between peoples, rather than a conference of admirals, whose presumption is the certainty of war, whose duty it is to act on the assumption that war will continue between our peoples. I do not want to discuss at all the detailed questions of the Geneva Conference, but before the House meets again there will have been the Assembly of the League of Nations. It is likely enough that the question of disarmament will be one of the chief matters discussed there. The Preparatory Conference on Disarmament will be meeting again, either at the time we reassemble or immediately afterwards. The Government will have to make up their minds as to what line they are going to take in the near future, and I do hope the Government are going to give a stronger lead to the waiting and hoping people. Cannot we make some great, challenging, dramatic offer of disarmament, not saying that we are going to disarm in any circumstances, but say to the nations, "We are ready to do the really big thing, to abolish all capital ships, if others will follow?" I see an hon. Member smiling, but may I say that, even naval authorities are agreeing that if you can get universal agreement, you might have very much smaller ships. Why not smaller, and smaller and smaller until you are relying, we will say, on quite small cruisers?

Commander BELLAIRS: America has already, in the negotiations, refused to agree to reduction in the dimensions of capital ships, much less abolish capital ships.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I will put my position in this way. May I remind the House what happened at the Washington Conference? The reason that Conference was a success at all was that the Americans came to it with a great offer which struck the imagination of the people, and it practically challenged us to agree to a very considerable reduction of first-class ships, and, in effect, whether we liked it or not, we had to follow. What I want to say is that we, who hold, really, a more influential position in the naval world than even does America, should make some great offer which America, Japan, and other nations of the world could not fail to meet to some extent, if not to the full extent that we made the offer. The lead has got to come from somewhere. If it does not come from somewhere, next year, I am afraid, there will be a bitter disillusionment on the part of the peoples of the world. They are looking for something from disarmament. It is no use one nation after another saying, "We are ready to reduce our armaments if somebody else will do it." Somebody has got to begin, and I only wish it would be our Government.
There are one or two other questions to which I want to allude. I want rather carefully to ask the right hon. Gentleman about something which has occurred recently in Paris. Since the Arcos Raid, and the expulsion of the Russian Trade Delegation from Great Britain, there has been abroad on the Continent a condition of suspicion and anxiety as to the future which is, perhaps, not quite appreciated in this country. We have rather tended to put it out of our minds, and to say "This is settled." Unfortunately, abroad it is widely believed that this movement on our part is the prelude to even worse relations with Russia, and there is abroad an atmosphere in which anything is very easily believed. We have seen the activities of White partisans in different parts of Europe. We have heard it constantly asseverated that the British Government is organising Europe against Russia, and as constantly the right hon. Gentleman has denied it in
strong terms. In the last few days there has been published in "Humanité," a French paper, a series of letters which purport to show that Lord Crewe, our Ambassador in Paris, has been in intimate communication with members of a rebel Ukranian Government; that he has met a man named M. Tokarjevsky, whom he asked to go to see him and that Lord Crewe has made promises of a more or less overt kind of British assistance in overthrowing Bolshevist rule in Ukrainia. I place no credence on these statements in "Humanité."

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Hear, hear!

Mr. TREVELYAN: But everyone will see how very serious the allegations are. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state, quite explicitly, if Lord Crewe, as alleged, sent for this person or these people. If so, did he have conversation with them? If so, did he discuss the subjects alleged? If he did not discuss the subjects alleged, did he discuss anything else? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's reply will clear the air. I think I am justified, in view of the very serious conditions abroad, to ask that the matter should be cleared up. I do not wish to say anything more on that subject.
A further subject which the House will agree ought not to be neglected when we are going to adjourn for three months is that of Shanghai. We have a large Army in Shanghai, although we do not hear very much about it. I almost believe that the Government want the country to forget its existence. The other day, the War Office was most extraordinarily secretive on the question as to how many troops we have in Shanghai. They cannot pretend that they do not know. Why then, should they not tell us? They flatly refuse. It is true that they said there are so many infantry units; but we are not all military experts, and even if we were the mere statement of how many infantry units there may happen to be there does not tell us the size of the whole force. For the purpose of argument I am going to assume that the force in Shanghai consists of 15,000 men. I do not know whether it does consist of that number or not. It is not my fault if I have underestimated or exaggerated the number. The reasons become less and
less apparent for keeping this considerable force, at enormous expense, kicking its heels in Shanghai. When it was sent out originally we made various objections, and all our objections, I maintain, have been fully justified.
We said, in the first place, that when armed force came to the front diplomacy would be at a discount. No one has tried to deny or wished to deny that the Foreign Secretary in the later months of last year seemed to have a very clear perception that things were changing in China. He had issued the December manifesto and shown a very clear recognition of the insurgence of Chinese nationalism, of their patriotic self-assertion, and of the general recognition that Western domination in China had, gradually, to come to an end. His negotiations were all tending in that direction. Of course, you cannot play two games at once, and when the British Army and the British Navy, in large force, went to Shanghai, negotiations fell in the background and we have not heard very much about them since. So far as we can see we are no nearer coming to an arrangement which will satisfy the one thing which, it is perfectly clear, dominates the whole of Chinese politics, and that is the determination of the Chinese, to whatever section they belong or under what ever General they are. They are all agreed on one thing, and that is that they want to be rid of all unequal treaties. The right hon. Centleman was moving in that direction, but since our troops have gone out other things, apparently, have taken place, and I have not seen any indication of any further progress in an understanding with the Chinese governing class.
The next thing we said was that illfeeling against the British would be accentuated by our sending out troops. We said that everyone outside the wire entanglements in Shanghai would be in a more uncomfortable position than they were before, and we were fully justified in that statement. The Government actually advised a general sauve qui peat to the rest of the British population to come to the coast, and that has been largely acted upon. The fact is that, owing to the exasperation of the Chinese at our action, more Britishers were in danger in other parts of China than were saved from danger
in Shanghai. The other thing we said was that British trade would be disastrously affected by what we were doing. We pointed out what had been happening in the previous year and that because we had got across the whole of the Chinese Nationalist movement, owing to the shooting at Shameen and Shanghai, the trade of Hong Kong had been hit very badly, that there had been scores of bankruptcies and that the condition of antagonism had been a disaster for Hong Kong. We said that the same kind of result might very likely be more prolonged and more disastrous by our sending out these great military preparations to Shanghai.
It is extremely difficult to get trade figures. Here, again, the Government are not very ready to help us; but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) and I have been putting questions, and have elicited some information. The most important part of the information is that if you compare the trade with China in the three or four months at the beginning of this year with the trade at the beginning of last year, you find that whereas the United States trade with China has gone up by 8 per cent., our trade has gone down by 20 per cent. A further fact which we have elicited is that in the April, May and June averages of trade with China last year, our exports were £1,182,000; this year they have fallen to £576,000, or to one-half. That is some indication of what is happening. I do not think there is any denial of the very serious effects on our trade. The real question is, how are the Government going to get out of this present impasse, and what is their policy? Sooner or later, the Government must give way to the united Chinese demand for the abolition of unequal treaties. When are they going to get a move on in that direction? Are they going to leave the British Army in Shanghai indefinitely or when are they going to bring them home? They have no business to keep the Army there, whatever the original justification may have been, except under imperious necessity—15,000 men or whatever number they are.
While the War Office is not able to give us the figures as to the size of the Army
in Shanghai, it is able to give us the figures regarding the number of men in hospital, and it is not a very satisfactory total. In March, there were 580 in hospital, in April 745, in May 871 and in June 959, or with officers practically 1,000. I do not know what proportion that is to the whole, but if my estimate of 15,000 is, right it means that one man in 15 is in hospital, and they are now only reaching the worst months. That is a formidable and serious thing. There is also the expense. That is a formidable cost. The newspapers to-day say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by economies, is going to be able to pay for the expedition in China. I wonder! It will have to be a formidable economy. The original Supplementary Estimate was for £950,000. There is another item for capital and transport of £1,000,000. Then there is the extra maintenance, presumably not put at any higher figure than it is by the War Office, of £250,000 a month. That means that at the end of six months we shall, on the Government's admission, have paid £4,450,000 for the expedition. By the end of the year at the same rate we shall have paid £6,000,000, to say nothing of the expense of bringing the troops back, if ever we do get them back. That means that already we have spent £740 per Britisher in Shanghai whom we have been protecting. I do not know whether it would not have been better to have waited for the risk—[HON. MEMBERS: "Suppose your own family were there?"]—and if the risk had appeared to have brought away our British population. I do not know whether it would not have been the wiser thing if and when any danger did appear to have brought away our population.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of China, may I ask what the policy of his party is in respect of the missionaries who, for so many months, have been taking their lives in their hands?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member asks about the missionaries who are gallantly doing their duty outside Shanghai. I have already said that they are in greater danger because of the aggravation of Chinese opinion brought about by this policy. I want to consider the results of three years of Conservative foreign policy, and I ask even those who
sympathise with all the excuses and reasons which are used to justify each separate act of the Foreign Secretary and the present Conservative Government to see what the main results are of three years of Conservative policy. What are they? You have two great tracts of the world, Russia and China, two of the greatest populations, running into hundreds of millions, two areas of potential trade development, either immediate or eventual; two areas which it is absolutely certain will form enormous areas of trade development, and the Foreign Secretary has managed not to be on speaking terms with the Government of either people. He has broken with Russia and he has refused to make any serious attempt to get into close relations with Chinese rulers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?" and "Which?"] And what is worse, the British nation is on worse terms with Russia and China than any other nation in the world, although we are the nation which needs trade more than any other nation and which politically needs better relations with both these countries because of our responsibilities in Asia. We may hold different opinions as to the balance of blame and responsibility for this state of things but no one can fail to see that we in this country are faced with a formidable and unhopeful future in our Asiatic relations, unless, somehow or other, a new spirit can be breathed into our relations with these two great countries.

Mr. O'NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has devoted a considerable part of his speech to the question of China. He said, first of all, that everything which he and other hon. Members opposite have said in opposition to the sending of troops to China has been fully justified. I wonder whether he really thinks of what might have happened in Shanghai if there had been no British troops there to protect the inhabitants when the defeated Northern Army, fleeing before the Kuomintang Armies, reached that city? Then he asked: What is the policy of His Majesty's Government in China? I take it that the Foreign Secretary will say that as soon as there is in China a stable Government with which he can deal he is prepared to reiterate his statement that he is ready to revise the treaties and gradually bring about a
state of affairs in which the British Concessions will be abrogated. That has been the declared policy of His Majesty's Government, and I have no doubt it is the policy to-day. The right hon. Member had a word or two to say about disarmament. Naturally, one is going to say nothing about the Naval Conference at Geneva. But a White Paper was issued the other day containing the report of the Chief British Delegate to the Preparatory Committee of the Disarmament Conference of the League of Nations. That Report forms very interesting reading and contains a good deal that is hopeful.
The question of disarmament seems to me to be the last of the great legacies of the War which has to be cleaned up. We had, first of all, reparations, and at one time that question seemed to be utterly and completely hopeless. I am glad to say that it has been satisfactorily settled, and we give credit to the Government of the party opposite for the action which resulted from the Dawes Report and the Conference which was held in London. Then there was the even more difficult question of security. That has been settled. It seemed, at one time, when the Triparte Pact, as it is usually known, between this country, the United States of America and France, fell to the ground through the withdrawal of the United States, that the question of security in Europe once again had become insoluble. Nevertheless, more sensible and more statesmanlike counsels eventually prevailed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary at Locarno was able to bring about a state of things as regards security without which any discussion of disarmament would have been wholly and completely impossible. Then we had the question of inter-Allied Debts as the third great legacy of the War. Even the question of inter-Allied Debts has been partially solved, and the position with regard to it is much more encouraging than it was a few years ago. But there still remains the question of disarmament. I have taken the trouble to write down the words of Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. I have no doubt they are well known to hon. Members of the House. Article 8 reads as follows:
The members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the
reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least every 10 years.
It is as a result of the provisions of Article 8 of the Covenant that the Preparatory Committee has been sitting. Before that Committee the British Delegation produced a draft of their views about disarmament. That was followed by a draft from the French Delegation. Then came the Report, and that Report is in some respect an unsatisfactory document. It is full of reservations on the part of the different Powers concerned. The particular meeting which has been taking place recently has only been in the nature of a "first reading," and we are fold that when the "second reading" takes place in November the decisions arrived at at the first reading can be reversed. However, Lord Cecil of Chelwood in his Report does give us some hope that it may be possible, eventually, for the Powers concerned to reach some kind of agreement which may render disarmament in Europe a possibility.
After all, what we are aiming at, what the Powers of Europe and the world are aiming at, in disarmament, is to stop aggressive armaments. The importance of disarmament is not perhaps quite as great with regard to the preservation of peace in the future as some of the other matters to which I have already referred. What is of vast importance is that at any rate the Powers now do get together and discuss these matters at the League of Nations. When we think of what took place before the War, when we think, for example, of the suggestion for a Naval holiday and of Lord Haldane's mission to Germany, all with a view of bringing about some cessation in the competition in armaments, surely it is a very great advance that the Powers of Europe should now be able at the League of Nations to meet together and discuss these matters amicably among themselves and with a real desire to arrive at some solution. Of course, the condition of
Europe to-day is full of snags which have to be surmounted before we can really say that we are in calmer waters. The Treaty of Versailles itself is undoubtedly full of snags. Several of them occur immediately to the minds of all who take an interest in the matter. One feels that somehow or other and sooner or later those snags have to be overcome.
Then there is the condition and the question of Russia. It is very difficult for us to consider the possibility, of a successful result to any Disarmament Conference when we consider the present position of Russia, because there you have a country with great military forces at its command, great armies, one of the great armed nations of the world to-day, and you have a Government admittedly based upon the principle of force and ruthless violence. In those circumstances it is very difficult to see how it is possible to arrive at agreement upon disarmament. Then you have Italy with, in another way, motives which are sometimes a little belligerent. Then you have permeating Europe the kind of thing to which open expression was given the other day in Vienna, a kind of Communistic unrest amongst many of the people of Europe. You have all these disturbing factors to face in dealing with the present condition of Europe and the possibilities of disarmament.
I most earnestly hope that with the help and the undoubted coed will and sincere purpose of the British delegates, eventually the Disarmament Conference at Geneva will produce results which will be to the good of Europe and the world. I was present last Sunday at the unveiling of the Menin Gate Memorial at Ypres, and no one who attended that very beautiful, very torching and very inspiring service could fail to have brought back to his mind the kind of thoughts that he was thinking nine years ago, when the War came to an end and when those who had fought through the War, particularly the soldiers, were thinking that as a result of it some definite advance towards the prevention of war in the future was to be made. One could not help feeling that. The most we can do is earnestly to hope and fervently to pray that before long it may be possible, in a greater measure than it is to-day, for that result to be attained.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech with which all of us on this side of the House can sympathise. The right hon. Gentleman treats these matters in a very serious way, and the only thing in his speech with which I disagreed was his reference to the snags in the Treaty of Versailles, when he spoke of surmounting them. You circumvent snags, you do not surmount them.

Mr. O'NEILL: I have been on a river boat in South America, and it certainly surmounted snags by knocking them under the water.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was not thinking of river navigation but of the rocks of the right hon. Gentleman's beautiful, wild, Irish coast. Any ship trying to surmount those rocks would come off very badly. Most people who try to surmount the right hon. Gentleman's fellow-countrymen have come off badly. When the Treaty of Versailles was before Parliament, I moved its rejection, and I got no support from the right hon. Gentleman. The trouble was this. Negotiations were going on and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and his assistants were carrying on those negotiations. We were told that under no circumstances must we ask for any details of what was being done. Then the whole Empire was committed to the Treaty. Ever since then, with the Dawes scheme, the Reparations discussions touched on by the right hon. Gentleman, we have been trying to get out of the Treaty of Versailles, to circumvent the snags—and there are many more to get around somehow. When the Treaty itself came before this House we were told, "Oh, good heavens! It is unpatriotic to criticise. You must pass this." There was a long discussion to a late hour, but no one thought of voting against the Treaty. Viscount Cecil, then in this House as a private Member and not in the Government, criticised it much more thoroughly than I could. But no one would oppose it. We have the same thing to-day at Geneva. I am not going into the details of what is happening there. Until yesterday's statement from the Foreign Secretary, we have had no official and authoritative statement as to where the Government stands on these vital questions in the discussions at
Geneva. Now the First Lord and his assistants and Lord Cecil have returned. Again we are put in the position that we cannot press for details. We cannot express even our views as to what should be done. The House is to-morrow to rise for three months, and in the meantime we are committed to heaven knows what at, Geneva.
I must follow up what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) with a few generalities. Suppose that the Geneva Conference is a success, as we all hope it will be. We, nevertheless, will be committed to an immense expenditure on armaments. The right hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill) expressed sentiments about armaments with which we all agreed. The French are prepared to agree to cut down navies, but suggest cutting down the French Army and see what will happen. We will agree to any nation in Europe cutting down its army or its air force, but the moment the Navy comes in there is a tremendous uproar. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) says, "I am all for peace and disarmament, but hands off the British Navy!" Then you go to some other Power, perhaps Italy, and suggest that submarines should be abolished. The Italians say, "No, they are a vital necessity to us and we must have submarines." You are always faced by these difficulties.
I repeat that all the conferences are approached from the wrong angle altogether. Before this Conference had met at Geneva, and before the experts were allowed even in the same room together, we should have had purely political conversations. I know some of the British naval experts taking part in the Conference, and some of the American experts. I know two of the Japanese experts. I know that all these devoted officers will do their utmost to preserve somehow or other the greatest strength possible for ships of their fleets, and if you put them together in the same room they are bound to resist any reduction for their respective units. There should have been a preliminary political discussion. If this Conference is a success, if some arrangement is patched up, that is only a beginning. There is the question of agreement with America. Let us recall what happened at Washington in 1921. The agreement reached there left
very serious loopholes, which have led to new waste in cruisers instead of battleships. I am afraid that, whatever happens at Geneva, we will be committed to a new race in another type of cruiser again. There was the question of the 10,000-ton cruiser, and now there is the 5,000-ton type, the trade protection cruiser, and that will lead to fresh competition. The best that can happen at Geneva will be only a beginning.
I have said that these matters have been approached from the wrong angle. As long as you have nations who are afraid of war yet have to face the remote possibility, as in the case of ourselves and America, you will have the respective Governments insisting on a minimum defence force in the air, on land or at sea, and you will not bring about peace by disarmament in the first place. You have first of all to bring about peace and then you will get disarmament. My right hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of an arbitration treaty. He mentioned Mr. Houghton's recent speech at Harvard, a most remarkable utterance. He mentioned Lord Cecil. I would remind the House also of the extraordinary utterances recently of Mr. W. R. Hearst, in the United States—a most extraordinary turn round of policy by a great newspaper proprietor and a man who has been an aspirant for the office of President. Extraordinary proposals he has made. Senator Borah has brought a Motion before the Senate advocating what is called, euphemistically, the outlawry of war. "You have in America and in this country, and in France in the person of M. Briand, those who are reaching towards some different method of avoiding the future catastrophe of war. It is in that direction that we will get disarmament, and not in the direction of Geneva or the League of Nations as represented by the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, and so on. Suppose that the worst happens and we break off the Conference at Geneva. Let us frankly admit in that case that the matter is beyond the purview of the so-called experts, the Admirals and their assistants, and that it is a matter for the politicians. If the politicians fail, it becomes a matter for the peoples themselves, and we must continue without being disheartened to work for an understanding with the American people.
I believe that if this country and America can agree, we can ensure peace in the world. If this country and America cannot agree, peace is not worth many years purchase. It will be a bad example to the other nations and all the efforts of the League of Nations in future will be in vain. The whole key to world peace is friendship between this country and America.
5.0. p.m.
I apologise for reiterating this, but I have noticed the beginnings of criticisms in the newspapers, and speeches both in this country and in America, which may increase, if they continue far a series of years, and may bring about the very same kind of catastrophe which brought war between us and Germany in 1914. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) entered the Army, and when I entered the Navy, we never had any idea of fighting Germany. We had a different potential enemy against whom we made our preparations, bat, about 1903, there was an extraordinary change. We patched up our century-old estrangement with France, we made the entente, we made an arrangement with Russia, we renewed our alliance with Japan, we recalled our battleships from the outer seas from China and so on, we reorganised the whole of our naval dispositions, we built Rosyth base, and we prepared for the war which, sure enough, came in 1914. That was because in those years the German Emperor began to make foolish speeches about his being the Admiral of the Atlantic and grasping the trident of Neptune, and he thoroughly alarmed the British people. From that time on, the friction grew, the ill-feeling increased, the newspaper campaigns went on, I am afraid I must say, on both sides of the North Sea. All the efforts for a naval holiday failed, and in 1914 we plunged into a war which cost the world 20,000,000 men, immense suffering and untold wealth and treasure that will not be reclaimed far 50 or 60 years.
How much better off are we now? What have we learned? What progress have we made towards getting peace? The war-weary peoples of the world are impoverished, and only two of the peoples who took part in the War are solvent to-day; I do not count Japan as she was in a distant theatre of the War. So far, we have not really learned the
lessons of the War, and, unless things improve, we may be at the beginning of a similar situation with America to that which began in 1902 and 1903 with Germany. It took 12 years for the seed which was then sown to germinate. The seed may be in the process of sowing at this moment in Switzerland, but it is time that we should look back on recent events and make very sure that that seed is not allowed to bear fruit. I can only repeat that we are very much hampered in this discussion by the situation in which we find ourselves, but this Parliament must not draw out of its responsibilities. We have been promised a full Debate in the autumn, and that must be insisted upon. I hope it will be a Debate that will he conducted in no partisan spirit. The matter is too serious for that. We are responsible to the whole of the peoples in the Empire. I can only end by saying that we require to he very patient indeed with the American people, and they with us. These two countries, with all their wealth, their resources and their potential strength, can keep the peace. If there is friction between them, and if they start a system of alliances against each other on either side of the Atlantic, there will he little hope of peace in the world, despite all the sacrifices of the War.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I feel that we are very much hampered in this Debate by the general understanding that a full discussion, at arty rate of the proposal regarding, naval disarmament, will have to be postponed until some date in the Autumn Session. But, whether we postpone our discussion of naval disarmament or not, there are certain facts that have come to light during the last few days which will make most of us feel that, even if, in the Autumn Session, the Government is able to announce that a considerable measure of naval disarmament has been achieved, none the less the situation of this country is one of danger. I am referring to the news which we have had during the last few days of the aerial manœuvres. There is a general impression in the country that we have freely advertised, during the last day or two, the fact that, whether we have an effective supply of small, fast, or any other kind of cruisers; whether we have as many cruisers as the Americans, or whatever arrangements
we may make from the point of view of naval armaments, the situation in the air is such that, if war does become an actuality again, we shall be wiped out although the whole of the seas be covered with our cruisers. I heard in 1924 a distinguished general reminding us that, if war came, the only defence of London would be for the whole of its inhabitants to run like rabbits out into the night as far from the town as they could get. I heard the Air Minister, two years ago, make a statement that the aerial situation was such that it was necessary to commend to the House a proposal which he had read in a book, the name and author of which he gave us, that the nations of the world should agree before war came that they would not drop air bombs upon the people, but only upon certain areas. I noticed, in the last year's discussion on the Air Estimates, that the Minister again expressed hopes that some arrangement might be arrived at by which there would be a delimitation of the areas in which aerial bombs are to be used in the case of war.
It is pretty clear, from the expressions of the Air Minister, that, however successful the Government may be during the next few months with regard to naval disarmament, we shall still be left with this nightmare of aerial warfare and all the consequences that follow from it. I have no doubt at all that if, by a successful prosecution of the disarmament policy at Washington or Geneva or elsewhere, you can effect a considerable saving of expenditure on cruisers or upon other types of warships, there will be released immediately in this country an overwhelming demand for the expenditure of all that you may save upon cruisers upon other means of defence in order to meet the newer menace in the air. I feel, therefore, and I am sure we must all This feel in House, that we must come back to the wider issue of disarmament, quite apart from the particular issue of naval disarmament. I agree with the contention, which has been several times stated in this Debate, that we shall have to take risks, and very considerable risks. After all, there cannot be any action that we can take that can involve us in much greater risks than the drift, in policy which seems
to be taking place at the present time. Suppose we do, from the point of view of naval armaments or aerial armaments, leave ourselves open to the possibility of this or that type of attack, is it not also true all the time that, when we have done our best, at any rate from the aerial defence point of view we are left with a terrible catastrophe confronting us. I desire, therefore, to take the discussion back again to the question of policy upon which the right hon. Gentleman who opened it spoke, a policy more deeply seated than the one which gives all its attention to the question of armaments, particularly naval armaments.
I feel that my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister in the Labour Government was on the right track at Geneva, in the famous speech which he made at the open Assembly and out of which ultimately came, I think, the proposals which were worked out in the Protocol. I think the policy which was then indicated by the Labour Prime Minister is the policy that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary will, in the long run, be compelled to revert to, a policy that proceeds by making closer links between proposals for disarmament and proposals for arbitration. I speak with respect of the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary to bring peace, but he must permit me still to feel that, particularly in matters of arbitration and his unwillingness to take risks in the matter of arbitration, he must himself bear a considerable responsibility for the slow progress that has been made in disarmament. I had the privilege, as the secretary of a very big peace movement in this country, to present to him in 1925 a very widely-signed petition which we had got up in a very short time—we only spent six weeks upon it, and yet we got 500,000 signatures—and in which we begged the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary to consider the need of accepting the optional clause and submitting in future at least certain kinds of disputes to the decision of an international tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send a very full and reasoned reply as to why he was unable to do that.
I never felt that his reasons were satisfactory and, particularly, I have not been able to feel satisfied with his refusal to
accept the openings that lead towards the process of arbitration. There have been offers on the part of Holland, Switzerland and Sweden of arbitration treaties, which the Foreign Office has found it impossible to accept. There is the proposal already referred to, associated with M. Briand's name, with regard to the new relations with America; but, so far as I am able to learn, the Foreign Office does not seem to be trying to imitate it in any practical form. All the time, the impression has grown, not only in our country but in the world, that, this country is prepared to take no risks whatsoever with regard to a settlement of its disputes in future by a, process of arbitration. I agree that we might go to an international court or to some arbitral council with a dispute and get a judgment which we did not like. We might possibly lose some of our territories, if we agreed, for example, to submit to the optional Clause. It is conceivable that a country like Spain might get up a case about Gibraltar and make a charge against us that we were holding property which ought to belong to someone else or ought to be managed internationally. It is conceivable that the judgment of an international court or an arbitral body might go against us in such a case. But I submit with all earnestness to the Foreign Secretary that, if we did lose this or that strategic point in the world, if we were robbed of this or that piece of territory, and if by showing our willingness to submit to arbitration, we induced in the world a greater feeling of confidence as a result of which more people were willing to meet us in common agreement for disarmament, then it would have been well worth while. I feel that until the Government can get back to the policy of close association, of advance towards arbitration at the same time as we are trying to advance towards disarmament, little success can be expected from the present naval disarmament proposals or any other disarmament proposals that may be put forward.
I should like to refer to the issue which has been brought into public discussion recently as a result of the speech of Mr. Houghton at one of the American Universities—Harvard, I think. I observe that a Conservative paper during the week-end stressed the importance of that speech. I do not know that I agree
entirely with the contentions of the editor on the point, but at any rate he says that in the proposals which the American Ambassador made—purely as a private individual and not as an official—he sees new light upon a very difficult problem. I do not believe this is exactly the way out of our difficulties, but the fact that a great Ambassador is willing to take a risk of loss in international affairs while we submit our difficulties to a public plebiscite, is a sufficient reason why some of us on this side should also be willing to take risks in regard to the difficulties which confront us. No doubt it will be said that I am too much of the visionary and that I am not sufficiently in touch with the practical difficulties of the situation, but my feeling seems to be the feeling of the American Ambassador—that the people of to-day knowing what they do of the last War, and knowing what a future war would mean for them, will vote against war every time a plebiscite is taken on the subject. If we could take the Ambassador's line, I believe we should remove the possibility of war from the world, but I find his proposal the more interesting because it seems to fit in with another proposal which my hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ponsonby) has been making recently—a proposal with regard to a signed declaration by the people that, if war comes, in no circumstances will they take part in it.
I know that not much attention has been given to that proposal, but as I have gone up and down the country engaged in propaganda on behalf of the idea for which my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside stands—and for which, if I may respectfully say so, the American Ambassador stands—I find there are thousands and tens of thousands of our people who are so oppressed by the idea of the horrors likely to confront us in any war of the future, that they are prepared to take their stand here and now and to say that come what may they will in no circumstances support a Government which goes to war. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and any other right hon. Gentleman who may hold the office of Foreign Secretary, that unless a way can be found out of our difficulties the common people will take the issue out of the hands of Ministers and will
decide for themselves that they will have nothing to do with any resort to force. I feel all the more earnest in putting forward this point of view, because I do so quite apart from any party consideration. This is not a party issue at all. One hon. Gentleman has referred to the question of Russia, and the danger which Russia represents to those who are at present considering disarmament. I agree that the Russian issue is serious. I do not pretend that because the Russian nation is Socialist, it is therefore pacifist. I know it is just the opposite, but I know also that Russia is being driven stage by stage towards a more cast-iron militarism as a result of the policy which we are pursuing in regard to her.
There are gentlemen abroad to-day who a year or two ago regarded themselves as Russian Whites, and who to-day are prepared to return to Russia and take their part in the present Russian system, because they believe that under Bolshevism with its Red Army and its use of force it may be possible to win that great Russian hegemony which was the dream of Peter the Great and of the Tsars who followed him. Indeed, I discussed with a Russian Count on the Terrace of this building the fact that some of his friends who hated the Russian revolution, and were utterly opposed to Communism, felt that because Communism had got into the saddle, and Russia was making good as an Empire, their place was back in Russia, helping the nation against whatever forces might assail her. By the policy of suspicion which has been pursued, by unfriendly acts towards Russia, both here and in other parts of the world, Russia is being made more and more warlike in her tendencies, and we are being driven nearer that star with Russia which some fear to be inevitable. If we are to get away from these nightmares which so constantly confront us, the common people must determine that, whoever may be made the enemy of the future, whether it be America, Russia, Japan, Germany or France, no consequence that may be gained by war will be worth the loss which the people will be asked to undergo. For that reason, I am sure that the propaganda will go forward. Unless a new hope arises that out of the Foreign Secretary's policy some practical results may be obtained, the policy will go forward by which the people will more and
more express themselves beforehand that if war is to be made in the future, they will leave it to the Governments to fight that war.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), like my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill), has made a thoughtful, and interesting and in some points a very instructive speech. I must return at a later moment to the broader issues with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) who opened the Debate was chiefly occupied, and which formed the text of the major portion of his speech; but I would like, first of all, to dispose of one or two other matters. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to some articles which appeared in the French paper "Humanité," which attributed to Lord Crewe communications with the representatives of a non-existent Ukrainian Government, and intrigued with them against the integrity of the Soviet Republic. There is not a word of truth, whether as concerns Lord Crewe or any member of his staff at the Paris Embassy, or any Member of the Government or servant of the Government, in the statements that were published in "Humanité. "It would perhaps be well that those who too lightly believe these silly and senseless, but at the same time dangerous rumours, should take warning that that paper is not one to be trusted for accuracy or truth.

Mr. TREVELYAN: In order to make the matter absolutely clear, may I ask did he see them?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: He did not. He neither saw them nor has anyone seen them on his behalf. Of course, there has been a certain amount of talk in certain quarters about an independent Ukrainian Government. I have given no encouragement to it. I profess no sympathy with the object which the Soviet Government proclaims as the purpose of its policy and I have a detestation of the methods which it employs whether at home or abroad. But I know—and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that the very fact that I have no sympathy with the Soviet system of government makes me act upon my knowledge, if nothing else—that there is no surer way to strengthen that Government and to
rally the Russian people behind it, than to take any action or give countenance, to any action which seems to the Russian people to threaten their national unity. That is common-sense. It is so clearly common-sense as almost to be a platitude, and perhaps this persistent rumour that Great Britain contemplates aggressive action is not altogether divorced from the fact that, by the spread of such rumours, the Soviet Government finds it easy to make the Russian people pardon the tyranny to which it subjects them. At any rate, I hope my answer has been sufficiently explicit, not merely to confirm the view which the right hon. Gentleman obviously took, that there was no truth in these statements, but to convince others that there is no foundation whatever for them.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of China. I do not know whether he expects me to reargue the question which was argued in this house when we sent the defence force to Shanghai. The right hon. Gentleman is confident—such a thing is not unknown about prophets—that every prediction which he made has
been realised. I think his predictions have been falsified. On the other hand, in contrast with him, I am confident that the timely presence of those troops at Shanghai alone saved that great international community from a, recurrence, on a larger scale and with infinitely greater loss of life, of the outrages perpetrated at Nanking. We have no desire to keep more troops there, or to keep troops there any longer, than is necessary. We have already, as the House knows, withdrawn the mixed Brigade, which was indeed only sent in the first instance because it was the Brigade which, being nearest to China, could arrive on the spot before any troops from this country or from the Mediterranean could reach that place. That Brigade has already been withdrawn, or is in course of being withdrawn. I am not quite certain about the exact state of the shipping, but I think it has actually left Shanghai—the whole Brigade.
Whenever we can take the responsibility of a further reduction of troops, we shall do it. We have, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, every interest on grounds of economy, and we have every interest on the ground of the
health of the troops to do so. Shanghai is not a healthy place in summer. The military authorities, well aware of that fact, have taken every precaution that science would suggest in order to safeguard the health of the troops, but if we can bring them back, again from that point of view, we shall be glad to do so; and we shall be glad to do so because that would show that there is a greater security or a lesser danger in China for the foreign community than existed at the moment when we had to send them. Nor has the policy of the Government in regard to our future relations with China changed from the declaration made in December, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, and amplified in the further Note of February. We adhere to that policy of negotiating new treaties, conforming to the changed situation, and we shall be ready to do so whenever we can find a Government which can speak in the name of China and can discharge the obligations which it takes upon itself.
The right hon. Gentleman made it a cause of complaint that I did not get along fast enough. I wonder whether he makes to himself any picture of the state of things existing in China, where Governments rise and fall, where generals come up and fade away, where every kind of shifting alliance and intrigue is perpetually in progress, and where there is nobody who, in large parts of China, can enforce or secure acceptance of any agreement that he may make. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this internal conflict among Chinese parties and Chinese Generals makes negotiation additionally difficult because every Government with which you have not made an agreement resents your having negotiated with the one with which you have made an agreement? Every Government demands that you negotiate with it, and with no one else, and makes it an offence, or a cause of complaint at least, if you try to keep out of their domestic quarrels, their civil wars and their anarchy, and to live in peace with them all. I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he occupied my position, would find that the objects of policy which he set before him were not so very far removed from mine, and that, as far as negotiations are concerned, he
could move no faster in these anarchical conditions than His Majesty's present Government have been enabled to do.
I ought perhaps, for one moment, to return to Russia, if only to repeat what I have already clearly said, that while the conduct of the Soviet representatives in this country, and the general policy of hostility adopted by the Soviet Government—in defiance of the agreement which they had signed and of the remonstrances made to them by each successive Government in turn—made it, in our opinion, impossible to maintain diplomatic relations with them, we had no intention, we have no intention, to push our differences any farther. We cannot restore diplomatic relations with a country which ignores all the courtesies and the decencies of international life. But trade may go on. We will do nothing to interfere with it and we have no desire to push, and no intention of pushing, our differences any farther.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made with regard to our relationship with Russia does not, I suppose—I am quite sure—close the door to any expression on their part of a wish to resume relations if they choose to make it?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, but they cannot be resumed on the old footing that they are to use their mission here to interfere in our domestic affairs or for improper purposes which would not be tolerated in the case of any other foreign mission.

Mr. WALLHEAD: All that I wished was to make it plain that the door is not barred to an approach from their side if they choose to make it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not. If they make an approach, they will no doubt state the conditions on which it is made, and we can discuss them, but relations cannot be resumed subject to the old abuses. There must be such a change of mind on the part of the Soviet Government as enables us to believe that, if the Soviet Mission be re-admitted to this country, it will conform to ordinary diplomatic and international usage.
The right hon. Gentleman opened his speech with observations about compulsory arbitration and disarmament, and
that has been the main burden of the speeches which have followed. I am sorry that I missed the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut-Commander Kenworthy). I had gone out for the double purpose of obtaining a little light refreshment and, at the same time, of reading papers in regard to a matter which was raised in this House, so that I might be certain that I was fully informed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I understand, expressed his horror at the thought of our drifting into any kind of quarrel with the United States of America. I need not tell him, or anyone, that I share to the full his abhorrence of such an idea; and be there agreement or be there not, about a practical and immediate scheme for a further limitation of naval armaments at Geneva, the last thing that I am willing to contemplate is that a failure to agree should lead to anything like a quarrel between us. Let us agree as friends, if we can: let us differ as friends, if agreement be impossible.
After all, there has been nothing unfriendly, no unfriendly word spoken, no hostile thought expressed by any British representative at home or at Geneva. On the contrary, the most friendly attitude has been throughout preserved. Take the very statement which I made yesterday—and it is all that I am going to say about the matters in question at Geneva. Is there anything unfriendly, novel, or alien to the Americans themselves, to American thought, in the views which I then expressed on behalf of His Majesty's Government? It is an old tale. The same thing was said by Lord Balfour at the Washington Conference, and met with acceptance, and the same thing was said this year by an American, by the Chairman of the House Committee on Naval Appropriations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Who is that?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. French, Chairman of the House Naval Committee. In presenting the Naval Estimates in the House of Representatives on 4th January this year, he spoke as follows:
The people of Great Britain depend, and must depend, upon the outside world. Their dependency is for food, it is for clothing, it is for structural material, it is for fuel, and especially fuel oil. Great Britain
must maintain open to her ships the lanes of the sea. To do this, Great Britain must have naval bases, and Great Britain, more than the United States, is in need of types of ships, such as cruisers, that are swift and of the widest radius of action. Great Britain must pay attention to reserve supplies of fuel oil and materials of all kinds in a manner that the United States does not need to consider. Stop the lanes of the sea to the ships of Great Britain and suffering would be brought to the people of the British Isles within a period of weeks, and the collapse of the British Navy as a fighting force would be a matter of days. Turn to the United States."—
And remember again that it is an American who is speaking to his country—
Our country could be cut off from the rest of the world, and there would be food for our people, there would be fuel oil for our use, there would be materials of all kinds for our service. The lanes of the sea might be closed to us for weeks or for years. Should the necessity arise, the United States, within our own territory, could sustain our people without suffering and could produce the material to meet whatever emergency naval necessities might require in the resumption of active naval warfare for the protection of the dignity and the honour of our country.
That is a statement of the British case with which no Briton would quarrel, made by an American, and all that I invite and ask is a fair consideration, without imputation of motives, without misrepresentation either of purpose or of means, for the argument which he has addressed in those convincing words to his own people is an argument which to us, situated as he describes, must be one of overwhelming force and necessity, needing our constant attention.
The right hon. Gentleman is impatient of the slow progress of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva or of the limited scope of the negotiations now taking place there between the three Powers. He calls for some great, challenging, dramatic offer. A challenging offer! Is it, quite certain that that is what is wanted? A challenging offer may very likely bring, may more likely bring, a refusal than an acceptance. For my part, I think the less there is that is dramatic about international affairs the more likely we are to serve the cause of peace. One of the dangers which we who have had habitually to attend the League know confronts our meetings at Geneva is that a Press eager for news, not disinclined for headlines, demands something dramatic, I had almost said melodramatic, every time we meet. You cannot have such a thing. You can
only proceed slowly, modestly, little by little. It is idle to think that the great world problem of limitation of armaments will ever be solved by some, great, challenging, dramatic offer on the part of any Power, big or little. I hold, and I know that my Noble Friend Lord Cecil holds the same view, that the most it is wise to hope for or reasonable to expect from the first meeting of a conference for the limitation of armaments is some small step forward, and that what we must look forward to is a series of such conferences gradually carrying forward at each meeting the task which the earlier conference had begun—not a sudden decision which changes the whole face of the world as the result of one meeting and will provide the right hon. Gentleman with the dramatic situation which he so much desires.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The trouble is that we are not moving forward in this matter; we are actually moving backwards on the question of armaments.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member. Like my Noble Friend, who is a representative on the Preparatory Committee, I take a sober and modest view, but I think we have made some progress, and I think that if we persist we may make further progress; but I cannot believe, and I think it would be fatal to expect, a great dramatic change produced by a single conference. This I must add in reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said, though I disclaim for His Majesty's Government any desire to produce a challenging dramatic document, anyone who took the trouble to read the opening speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty—not the opening speech of the Conference, but the first speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty on the opening day of the Conference—will see that His Majesty's Government had threshed out before their delegates left for Geneva a considered scheme of further limitation directed to checking, above all things, the further growth, reducing the size, and limiting the numbers, of the great fighting units of the Fleets of the world. Do not let it be supposed that that programme was hurriedly put together. Our authorities had been working on it for weeks and for months before President Coolidge's
invitation was received, and it was brought to the notice of the Government as a whole, for their consideration, I think, a week before we actually received President Coolidge's invitation. It was, therefore, a carefully thought-out scheme. It is not dramatic, I do not claim that, but I claim that that would put not merely a check upon the growth of, but further the restrictions which are now in operation upon existing armaments, and would thus, without endangering the national security of any of the Powers who might become parties to it, limit armaments and secure economy, with consequent relief to our people.
More than that I cannot say, and if I did I should myself be lacking in the discretion which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown in dealing with this subject, which is now actually under discussion between the representatives of the Powers. I can only say for His Majesty's Government that we think that in the instructions with which our delegates have gone back there ought to be the basis of an agreement acceptable to both the Powers with which we are negotiating and, if adopted by them and ourselves, acceptable to the other naval Powers as well when their time comes to consider it. We cherish the earnest hope that this Conference called by President Coolidge may secure the objects which he had in view when he summoned it, and that by its success it may encourage and assist the great work which the League is endeavouring to bring about.

Orders of the Day — HOME OFFICE ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. MOSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman in his earlier observations laid down a doctrine which is novel to the Conservative Government. He said there was no such way to strengthen the Soviet as to attack it. That doctrine is something of a novelty for the right hon. Gentleman himself, but when that utterance was cheered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was sitting by his side, our astonishment increased. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman lives and learns, but his experience is bought at very considerable cost in lives and money to this nation. The Foreign Secretary himself was a responsible member
of a Government which not only attacked the Soviet Government with propaganda and abuse, as the present Government attack it, but actually attacked it with arms and with money. The right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were both prominent members of that Government, and they are also now members of this Government which has attacked the Soviet in every possible way short of armed violence. Therefore, it is a matter of some gratification that this evening, for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has stated his new knowledge that the way to strengthen the Soviet is to attack it.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to endeavour to rebut the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) in regard to China, and said that if British troops had not been at Shanghai, with all the cost and trouble which was involved to this country, the same events might have happened in that city as occurred in Nanking. No evidence whatsoever has been produced that any other circumstances would have arisen in Shanghai than those which have commonly prevailed when cities change hands, as they often have, in the Chinese civil war. Practically the only serious occurrences arose in Nanking; otherwise, these transitions were effected with scarcely any damage to property and with practically no damage to life at all, and the right hon. Gentleman has yet to produce evidence to show that any such danger or menace would have arisen in the actual transfer of Shanghai from one Chinese ruler to another. The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not rebut the very clear evidence which my right hon. Friend adduced to show how serious have been the effects upon the trade of this country. Our trade with China has fallen off by some 20 per cent. since those events, and the cost to this country for the protection of our citizens has worked out at a far higher rate than anybody anticipated, a cost of well over £700 a head. My right hon. Friend suggested that it would have been cheaper to bring the entire British population home, and obviously it would have been, and there were other advantages to he derived from such a course. If the entire population
had been brought home, not only would it have cost less than their defence has actually cost, but the damage to our trade would have been of a less permanent character. By such a step our trade would have been affected temporarily, but by the dispatch of an armed force and the aggravation of Chinese sentiment against this country we have permanently, I fear, and possibly irrevocably, damaged the possibilities of trade with China. The case which the right hon. Gentleman advanced this evening against the contentions of my right hon. Friend has proved in the hard test of experience to be a far worse and far weaker case than the case put forward in those confident assertions and those loudly-advertised schemes announced from the benches opposite at the beginning of the Session.
The right hon. Gentleman passed on to the discussions now going forward at Geneva. He said, and, I admit at once, with much force, that he had never been guilty of any unfriendly action or gesture towards the United States of America. I agree at once that he has certainly not been guilty of such a mistake. But my right bon. Friend's point was different. He showed that the whole of the discussions at Geneva and the attiture of our delegation are based on the hypothesis that war between this country and the United States is a matter of practical political consideration. That is the whole basis of those discussions—the envisaging of a possibility too horrible to contemplate, a possibility which would definitely mean the end of civilisation as we know it, and a possibility which is beyond the scope and the range of practical politics.
In so far as those discussions have proceeded they have very considerably reinforced the opinion, often stated from these benches, that any reduction of navies, in almost any proportions, stands to the advantage of this country. In a way the Geneva proceedings have been a reductio ad absurdum of the military argument. We have had Lord Jellicoe getting up and saving that it took some 75 cruisers to arrest the "Emden" and that such a ratio, such a proportion, is necessary to deal with any cruiser which breaks through our precautionary measures in time of war. Really, if the safety of the country is to depend on a
70 to 1 superiority over other nations this is quite clear, that the more the navies of the world are reduced, in almost any proportions, the greater the factor of safety far this country.
6.0. p.m.
I will not pursue that argument in the delicate situation which is now admittedly before us, but I would deal with one other observation of the right hon. Gentleman in which he rather ridiculed the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that some great dramatic gesture, some challenging move from this country might be the best way to force a reduction of armaments upon a reluctant or a fearful world. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that all things are done best in secret. As for the idea that these soft-footed gentlemen, creeping from Chancellery to Chancellery, are the real white doves of peace, our experience has produced a very terrible denial of that argument. I contend that every great advance in foreign affairs of recent years has occurred when statesmen have had the courage to break with the methods of the past, and to challenge the conscience and the imagination of mankind. The right hon. Gentleman claims for himself that he is an ardent supporter of the League of Nations. When that League was in its inception there was just such a challenge thrown out as my right hon. Friend has advocated, but President Wilson left the Chancelleries of Europe and appealed to public opinion. President Wilson propagated his doctrine on the platform and appealed to the conscience of the people, and mobilised public opinion in such a way that it compelled the statesmen of the world to depart from their professed principles.
I can see no valid reason in the light of our experience and our recent history why some such move by this country should not be made? Why should we not take our courage in both hands and go forward appealing to the conscience of the world, and why by taking this course should we not bring about a result even more dramatic and beneficent in its ultimate consequences I will say no more upon this subject, but if the Government fails by any smallness of measures, or meanness of spirit to bring home the results which this country and the world expects of them not only we in this House, but a good many people in
this country who have waited too long for a realisation of the dreams of the War will have something to the point to say to the present Government. I am grateful on this occasion for the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
It is now my duty to pass to another subject notice of which has been given, and which only remotely concerns foreign affairs, and is more directly addressed to the Home Secretary. A week or two ago my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) brought certain questions to the notice of the Home Secretary in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman required notice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton desires to express his regret that a very urgent engagement elsewhere prohibited his attendance, and he has asked me to put the matter once more to the Home Secretary in the hope that these grave matters may be cleared up. The first question which I have to address to the Home Secretary is already more or less settled, but it raises rather a grave matter of public interest. The right hon. Gentleman published Command Paper No. 2682, which contains certain documents relating to Russia and the Communist party of this country. On page 54 of this Command Paper it was stated that a certain letter was found at 38, Great Ormond Street, but in the police evidence at the Communist trial last year it was stated categorically by Inspector Renshaw that this particular document was found at 16, King Street. I addressed a question to the, Home Secretary on this subject, and it subsequently transpired in a letter which he has written that the document was in fact discovered at 16, King Street, and that the Communist Command Paper contains a very grave error.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many other errors of this magnitude occur in this authentic document containing all the sins of omission and commission by the Communist party and the Russian Government ever since this Government came into office. Really we are dealing with very grave judicial matters which cannot be handled in this light-hearted way. The Home Secretary used the same document to incriminate two different lots of people in the trial of these Communists who dwelt in King
Street, and in the Command Paper it is stated that he used the same document to incriminate those who dwelt in Great Ormond Street. I am unaware of the varying relationships of these facts, but the fact emerges that the same documents cannot be used to cast aspersions on the inhabitants of each place. I think the Home Secretary should address a rather severe remonstrance to those who have fallen into the error of preparing an erroneous paper for submission to Parliament.
Before I come to the gravest matter involved, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has inquired into another case which arose in Glasgow. A woman, called Ethel Chiles, was alleged to be a foreign spy, and it was alleged that a Mrs. Crawford had assisted in the escape of this lady by changing clothes with her, and it was also stated that this lady had stayed with Mrs. Crawford's brother in Glasgow. As a matter of fact Mrs. Crawford does not possess a brother, and she denies all the allegations which have been made against her, and unless they can be substantiated I am sure the Home Secretary will take this opportunity of withdrawing any aspersions cast upon the conduct of this lady.
I come now to the third case, which raises a very serious matter. I will make no mystery whatsoever of the way in which this matter was brought to my notice and to the notice of the hon. Member for Bridgeton. A very well-known solicitor, whose name I am ready to give if necessary, and who has appeared in certain famous trials of late, considered it was a matter of public duty Co secure the raising in this House of the matters which I am now about to bring before the attention of the Home Secretary. This solicitor, and this solicitor alone, is my source of information in regard to this matter. To summarise the case, a man named Henry Robert Johnstone, of 32, Fieldside Road, Bromley, committed suicide on Tuesday, the 14th June last, at Southend-on-Sea. The inquest appears to have been hurried on, because it was held the next clay, and at the inquest I understand the only important witness who was called was this man's wife. On the body of the dead man was found a letter addressed to another lady, a Mrs. Martin, with whom his relationship
appears to have been intimate. The solicitor who brought this matter to my notice now holds two statements, one signed by the dead man's wife, Mrs. Johnstone, and the other by Mrs. Martin, both of which allege that this man was in the pay of the police and the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and was employed as a spy upon the National Unemployed Workers' Committee Movement, and these letters further relate that the suicide of this unfortunate man followed upon his exposure as a spy in the pay of the police, and followed also on the cutting-off of his money or salary by the police. The first statement by Mrs. Martin is perhaps worth reading, and I will read a few sentences to the House:

"1. He (that is Johnstone) was in the pay of Scotland Yard, and had been submitting reports to them on what happens in the working class Movement, particularly the National Unemployed Workers' Committee Movement, for at least three years.
2. That when he first became informer for the police he was only receiving £2 per week, later £3 per week regularly, and special payments in addition for special reports.
3. He stated that on the occasion when he embezzled £14 belonging to the Lewisham Branch of the N.U.W.C.M. he had told the police that lie was to be expelled from the Movement over this, and they paid him £20 in order that he could pay the money back and prevent his expulsion. He paid back the £14, but was expelled from the Lewisham Branch of the N.U.W.C.M., and also from the Communist party. He had, however, regained his connection with the Movement by establishing a branch of the N.U.W.C.M. at Bromley, Kent, and taken on secretaryship. It was from this branch that he continued to sit upon the London District Council of the N.U.W.C.M.
4. He further stated that on the occasion of the National Conference of the N.U.W.C.M. in 1926, he had received a special grant of £8 form the police for his report. He also received a special payment for attending the reception given to the released Communists at the Holborn Town Hall.
5. He also stated that on occasions when he did not have sufficient spicey material for his reports he wrote it up out of his own imagination, very often giving statement and extracts from speeches that were never made.
6. He suggested that if I would go into partnership with him, and convey news to him from inside the Communist party, and add more to it of what I thought they could have said, I could earn no end of money.
7. He told me that he dealt with an officer of the Yard named MacBrien, and
1541
that when he had occasion to meet him it was either in Wimbledon or Putney. He also knew Sergeant Gill, and on one occasion had bluffed him for £10.
8. He dealt with MacBrien in the name of Francis.
9. He stated that his understanding with MacBrien was that in the event of the Movement discovering his connections he would receive from MacBrien a lump sum of roughly £100 down to enable him to clear out of the district or abroad if necessary."

The statement goes on to say that there was a further meeting between MacBrien and the deceased in which he asked for money and this was refused. There is also a very pathetic letter from the wife of this man in which she says:
At the inquest the verdict was returned temporarily insane. This was probably brought on by his knowledge that he was about to be exposed by the Movement. I know he was greatly worried about this matter, especially when he knew that members of the Movement were already in Bromley waiting for him. I knew he was in the pay of Scotland Yard. He dealt through Superintendent MacBrien, who saw him, according to a statement to me made by Mrs. Martin, at Southend-on-Sea. It appears that Johnstone was trying to get some money from MacBrien, who refused it. You will, of course, condemn the action of Comrade Johnstone in accepting money from the police, but I think that you will recognise that the responsibility for my husband's action in committing suicide rests mainly on Scotland Yard, and as I have four little children, and expecting another, who along with myself are left destitute, I think that Scotland Yard should make compensation to me.
That very pathetic letter, and the other letters, are in the possession of the solicitor I have mentioned. I have not Seen the originals, but the solicitor supplied me with copies and informs me that he holds the originals himself. Clearly, this is a very grave matter upon which I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some explanation. If these facts can be substantiated, it is clear that this unfortunate man, who became a spy for the police, was driven to suicide by an exposure of his occupation and further by a cutting off his emoluments by the police. Really, it does appear to be a little beneath the dignity of a great country, even in the pursuit of the private affairs of its Government and their political friends, so to degrade itself as to use an instrument which at the end is so ruthlessly and callously cast aside. I have quite frankly put the facts, as far as I am acquainted with
them, before the House. I cannot vouch for those facts to any greater extent than the evidence which I have produced, and which has been supplied to me in the way that I have quite frankly stated. I hope very much, for the good name of the Government and the country, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able entirely to refute these allegations. Certainly, this matter cannot be allowed to rest where it now is, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will make a full and ample explanation.

Mr. CADOGAN: I also desire to claim the attention of the Home Secretary upon a matter which may not be quite so sensational as those which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Mosley), but which I hope he will agree is of equal importance. I had hoped to raise this question on the Home Office Estimates, but, as the House will recollect, the particular Vote, on which I could have raised it, was, in deference to the wishes of hon. Members opposite, passed over in silence, and, as I have not yet acquired complete indifference to the feelings of hon. Members, I did not challenge the Vote; but I take fresh courage this afternoon, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to hold out some hope that he will give attention to this matter.
Hon. Members have had in their hands for some time past the extremely interesting Report of the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders, and, if I may be allowed to do so, I should like to recommend those who have not read it to digest its contents. I am sure the Home Secretary will agree with me that some of the Committee's recommendations require prompt attention, if the new experiments in the treatment of young offenders are not to fail simply because we fail to carry out the experiments on the approved lines. I wish to bring to the attention of the Home Secretary particularly those paragraphs in the Report which speak of the present overcrowding of Borstal institutions. So long as those institutions remain in that condition, so long will the governors, the housemasters and the officers—to whose work I should like to take the opportunity of paying the highest tribute—find themselves severely handicapped in their work, and the benefits of the system will be rendered nugatory.
As the Home Secretary knows, I have served for some years on the visiting committees of two of these institutions, and I speak, therefore, with some first-hand knowledge, although probably the right hon. Gentleman would think I speak with some prejudice. It has been definitely recommended by this Departmental Committee that the total number in each of the three institutions for boys that are at present in existence in England should not exceed 240. Under existing conditions there is now a total aggregate population in these three institutions of 1,060, whereas, according to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, there should be only 720, so that one more institution is essential if the system is to be carried on on approved lines. As a preliminary, however, to devising any expedients to limit the number in each institution, it should be a first consideration that border-line cases should not be sent to Borstal. It is argued, I know, that this system is capable of ameliorating, or even of curing, such cases, and I am quite prepared to believe that that is so; but they must be entirely segregated in different institutions. There is at the present moment a very formidable percentage of these border-line cases at present in Borstal institutions. An endeavour is made to localise the evil by sending them, as far as possible, to one institution, that at Feltham. I had hoped that the Mental Deficiency Bill would have included in its Clauses some provision which would have obviated this, but, as far as I can see, it leaves this particular problem untouched.
I have been told, by those who ought to know better, that there are no borderline cases in these institutions, that they are all eliminated in the preliminary investigation that is made. That is absolute nonsense. There are at least 100 in these institutions at the present time. Nothing can prejudice the proper working of the system more. These institutions were never intended for the feeble-minded. There is neither the requisite staff of specialists, nor can a sufficient amount of time be given to these cases. Those who know anything about the matter will realise that such border-line cases not only require individual attention, but occupy a very
great deal of the time of the officials of the institution. Excellent and interesting as are the records of the results of the Borstal system over the last 20 years, they would be still more convincing if the border-line cases could be segregated, and their records kept separate from those which deal with youths of normal mind. I might add that, if the suggestion in the Report of the Departmental Committee—which I cordially welcome and with which I heartily agree—that imprisonment of those between the ages of 16 and 17 should be abolished, were carried into effect, the whole problem of accommodation in Borstal institutions would be considerably aggravated. It is estimated by the Committee that it would increase the population of those institutions by at least 1,000, and that would mean, of course, the provision of three more institutions at the very least. Careful individual treatment is essential to the new system of treatment of young offenders, and I beg the Home Secretary to study this crying need for better accommodation.
There is one other subsidiary matter with which I desire to deal in this connection. The Prison Commissioners have concentrated, in a wing of Wandsworth Prison, those youths who are remanded from the London area, and also all those youths who are committed to Borstal treatment, in order that they may receive preliminary investigation and observation. I have made it my business recently to visit Wandsworth Prison for the express purpose of investigating and acquainting myself with the system, which is administered by a voluntary band of workers under most prejudicial surroundings. As the result of my investigations there, I most cordially endorse the findings of the Committee as to the utter inappropriateness of this wing of the prison for this purpose, and I urge upon the Home Secretary that the boys' wing of the prison should be closed, and some more suitable accommodation found elsewhere. This prison is certainly a most inappropriate place for this purpose, and it is likely to have on the minds of young men just that unfortunate, baneful influence which our modern methods of treatment are endeavouring to eliminate. On the left, as you go in, is the condemned cell, on the right the place of execution, and
out in the yard are buried those who have paid the extreme penalty of the law. The whole atmosphere of the place is antipathetic to the rehabilitation of the youthful delinquent. In these days, when so much importance is rightly attached to the influence of surroundings upon the undeveloped mind of the young, it is impossible to insist that this is a proper place for the preliminary observation and examination of young delinquents. It is essential that remand observation centres should be as dissimilar in characteristics as possible from the convict prison, and yet, here in Wandsworth, the very first process to which the youthful delinquent is subjected is conducted in an atmosphere which is redolent of the prison taint.
Two Reports have been placed in our hands lately, both dealing with the welfare of the youthful citizen. If we only express sympathy with the findings in those two Reports, we shall not go far in effecting those long-needed reforms. I do not think the Home Secretary's bitterest political opponent, if he has a bitter political opponent, can accuse him of inactivity. In fact, I think it is, perhaps, activity of which he might be accused. I earnestly hope that the findings of the Committee on the matters to which have referred will have his attention, and that these much-needed reforms will be brought about at no distant date.

Mr. HAYES: I am glad of the opportunity to refer to a matter which also affects the Department of the Home Secretary. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Mosley), who stated the details of his case, I think, very well, except to say that I think that questions of that kind are questions more of policy from the Home Office than questions of administration from New Scotland Yard. The Department at New Scotland Yard has grown up into something rather foreign to that which it was intended to be at its inception. Many years ago, the Special Branch, or Political Branch, of New Scotland Yard had the sole duty and purpose of protecting foreign visitors who were the guests of this country. I do not, therefore, propose to question the manner in which the officers have carried out their duty, for, so long as it is the policy of the Department that information shall be obtained, it is, of course,
obvious that police officers are not likely to get that information if they make themselves known to the people of whom they desire to make inquiries. I do know that it is a most distasteful job. Everyone, of course, detests it, but, so long as it is a question of policy, I suppose the officers at New Scotland Yard will carry out their duties according to the instructions given to them.
The matter that I desire to raise is one that affects, I suggest, the efficiency and contentment of the police service. It is the question of the accommodation provided for the housing of police officers' families. One appreciates, as one must, all the difficulties of local authorities who are called upon from time to time to house police officers transferred into their areas at comparatively short notice. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, during his period of office, has endeavoured to improve the housing accommodation available far police officers, particularly in London, but I hope that the policy of the Department will not remain the policy of building tenement houses in central London, but that it will extend its activities to the provision of houses in the suburbs of London, and will encourage and assist local authorities outside the Metropolitan Police District to build houses by making some provision out of the Police Fund. The right hon. Gentleman probably holds the view that he cannot undertake in suburban areas the provision of housing for police officers. To a question put to the right hon. Gentleman on the 30th of last month by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) he replied that:
The funds available for the provision of housing accommodation for the Metropolitan Police are necessarily reserved for the Central Divisions, where the need is greatest. In the residential suburbs the men are left to make their own arrangements, apart from a few sets of quarters at new stations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1027; col. 592, vol. 208.]
I am afraid that, having been left to make their own arrangements, they are often without suitable accommodation, because local authorities must have regard to their local needs in the order of application made by people desiring new houses. I am not going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to press local authorities to give, shall I say, special treatment to police officers who are transferred to other districts, because that would
tend to create a feeling of resentment—and one can understand it—on the part of the local residents which would not be calculated to create that pleasant or harmonious relationship between the officers in the locality and the people amongst whom they must do their duty. Therefore, if it be necessary for the police officer's family to be properly housed—and I suggest that it is particularly necessary—the Home Office policy should be directed to financial provision for the erection of new houses which would remain the property of the police authority.
In Birmingham, and in other areas, the local authorities have done something towards that state of affairs. In the Metropolitan Police district, however, a police officer who may be transferred so far from his original station that it is almost impossible for him to return home after he has completed his duty, is compelled either to live under conditions that are unsatisfactory, or be has to purchase his own house. If he purchases his own house, most police officers find it necessary to resort to a loan. They mortgage the property, in other words borrow money on security. Under the Police Regulations, it is improper for a police officer to borrow money, and particularly from certain people. One never knows, perhaps one hardly inquires, just what are the occupations of people who may be associated with businesses or societies that may have money to lend, and there is the possibility that upon strict inquiry it might be found that certain police officers may he innocently contravening the Regulations.
But, arising from the provision of their own houses, there then comes the question of the assistance which, by the Regulations, is extended to them in the form of what is known as rent aid, which takes the form that the police authority-shall provide quarters free of rent, rates and taxes or, in the absence of that provision, shall pay a non-pensionable allowance, in the case of a constable not exceeding 15s. a week. That income is regarded by the policeman's wife as her property in so far as she is responsible—most policemen hand over the responsibility for household affairs to their wives—for the payment to the landlord of that income by way of rent aid. When a man purchases his own house, he is in considerable
danger of losing that rent aid, with the result that he finds himself in a far worse position after providing his own house than if he left it to the police authority. The police authority in London uses the opportunity, in its interpretation of the Regulations, to withhold the rent aid. Let me give an example. A police officer obtains, perhaps for deposit purposes, £100, on which he has to pay 5 per cent. The measure of the sum he must set on one side for interest and repayment, rates, repairs, and ground lent, would probably stand at anything from £75 to £90 a year. He sub-lets a portion of the house. The amount he receives for sub-letting is, under the present interpretation, set off against his right to receive rent aid. The consequence is that if he receives a half of his outgoing in the matter of subletting he automatically loses the benefit of the rent aid, which leaves him in many cases in a position of financial embarrassment, and at the same time the police authority has been relieved of the payment of the rent aid, and I suggest that in developing that policy the provision of the Regulations is being somewhat escaped by the police authority.
This matter has been before both the police authorities at the Yard and the Home Office. The Commissioner of Police has been asked if he will reopen the whole question with the Home Office in order that these eases might be very carefully examined so that there should not be an interpretation of the Regulations which will create hardship and might possibly put the police officer in the position of contravening the Regulations by himself becoming financially embarrassed. There are ways and means by which he could deceive the police authorities. I do not think it is a good thing, I think it is very unhealthy, that a police officer should have to resort to artifice in order to secure that 15s. per week rent aid. I do riot propose to disclose, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not ask me to, the ways and means by which this can be circumvented, but some men have declined to transfer, shall I say, the property rights in their houses to other people, with the result that they have been denied the benefit of the rent aid. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance, not that he is sympathetic. because I know he is, but that he will go into the matter
again and see if he cannot first of all do something to extend the provision of housing in the suburbs and help the local authorities in that respect, and, secondly, that he will see that no police officer is penalised to the extent of, perhaps, 15s. a week merely because he has become his own landlord, and what is more, has become a good citizen and relieved the Metropolitan Police of the responsibility of having to carry out the Regulations in so far as the provision of quarters is concerned.

Mr. GROVES: I want to call the Home Secretary's attention publicly to a case which affects me as the representative of Stratford Division. A little while ago, I mentioned the case of one of my constituents who was prosecuted at the instigation of the West Ham Board of Guardians for wilfully refusing to maintain himself, and he was sentenced to one month's hard labour. At the hearing, certain statements were made, which I submit were cruel. The man was offered a situation as barman at a local public house at seven days per week, 11 hours a day, at 22s. a week. Of course he would have had his mid-day free for rest. He did not refuse the job from the point of view of the smallness of the money. He said in Court that he had a medical certificate that he was not fit to take a seven days' job. The magistrate remarked, "I expect he is a total abstainer, and objects to serving beer." I take exception to that. I do not think a public Court should be used to take advantage of such a position. The man had been attending the London Hospital since the 18th June, 1922, as a day patient, suffering from a stricture of one of the valves of the heart. I have consulted medical opinion in the House, and I understand it is a serious complaint, imposing such a physical restriction that he should not be compelled to have a situation that necessitated very much standing. I have a certificate from the out-patient department of the London Hospital stating that he had regularly attended from the 13th June, 1922, and his last visit was on the 14th June, 1927. The man himself told the magistrate' that he had medical proof of his unfitness, and therefore the jeer was a merciless one.
That was on the 4th July. On the 8th July the matter was brought to me, and I considered it my duty to approach
the local magistrate. I showed him this medical certificate and I said I should feel it my duty to submit the matter to the Home Secretary, and the magistrate gave me his permission. I said I should lay before the right hon. Gentleman the fact that I had approached him, and he said he had not that evidence before him when he inflicted a month's hard labour. I have a group of letters covering a period of three years, which I am prepared to submit to the right hon. Gentleman, showing that the man had applied for work. He was offered a job on the Great Eastern Railway in 1926 but was turned down by the medical adviser as being unfitted for the particular class of work. I am not complaining of the Home Secretary's action. I want, in my own defence, to prove publicly that I have done what it is possible for a Member of Parliament to do, and laid the facts before the right hon. Gentleman. The man has been relieved from hard labour and put on to light tasks, but he ought to be out. His time expires on Monday, and this lackadaisical policy on the part of someone—I hope the Home Secretary will make it clear on whose part—means that I should not get a reply from him until the man is back to his family. I have known him for a quarter of a century. I have lived in the same street for 17 years, and I know, other things being equal, he is a perfectly respectable man, suffering from a really serious physical defect, who should not be called upon to perform that class of work. In my opinion, the prosecution was undertaken in a vexatious spirit. I went out of my way to produce for the Home Office the necessary evidence. I am very disappointed indeed that on the eve of adjourning for the long Vacation there is no reply from the Home Secretary. I raise this question here, because I do not want my constituents to think that in matters of this kind I turn my back upon them. I deal with them. It is a serious case of a man prosecuted by the West Ham Guardians, in my opinion, viciously.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot deal with the action of the West Ham Guardians in this matter. I understood that he wanted to make an appeal to the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member had better not bring in another matter, which is really out of order.

Mr. GROVES: I do not want to bring in the question of the West Ham Board of Guardians, and I desire to obey your ruling. I will conclude by appealing to the Home Secretary to give a reply on this matter, because I wish to have it publicly stated that Edward Harland, of 94, Cobham Road, is in prison in the circumstances I have indicated.

Mr. VIANT: I want to refer to the question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes). There is considerable difficulty surrounding local authorities concerning the London area in respect of the housing of the police. I want to make an appeal to the Home Secretary to give some special consideration to these local authorities. It is becoming quite a common thing for appeals to be made to local authorities when they are embarking upon a scheme for the erection of houses to make some accommodation or to set some accommodation apart for the housing of the police, with the result that you have no end of friction in the particular area itself. Even inhabitants who have large families find that occasionally they are pushed aside in order that privileges shall be given to police officers in respect of housing accommodation. That sort of thing is not conducive to a good spirit or a good feeling in the areas, and, furthermore, it is not beneficial to the local authorities. Some local authorities who are responsible for the police through the agency of the Watch Committee are erecting special houses for police officers. In Birmingham, I believe, 134 houses have recently been erected, and I believe another large scheme is about to be launched in Oxford. It has received the provisional endorsement of the Watch Committee and is now awaiting the sanction of the Home Office. That is all very well in its way, but the general feeling is—and it is growing rapidly with local authorities—that the Home Office, who are responsible for the policing of the Metropolitan area, ought to play a greater part in the housing of the police than it is playing at the present time. I have had my attention drawn to a statement which appeared in
the Report of the Commissioner of Police. The Report says that if the local authorities refuse to find houses for the police, then they must lose, to some extent, the police protection which otherwise would be afforded them. I want to submit that it is hardly fair to suggest that the local authorities should be deprived of police protection simply because they are unable to provide houses for the accommodation of the police. That condition of affairs ought not to obtain.
I feel that it ought to be within the scope of the Home Office to devise ways and means of becoming responsible for the erection of houses for police officers. Personally, I feel that co-operation between the Home Office and the Office of Works would enable houses to be erected in various districts in Greater London, supplementing the houses that are already being erected by the local authorities. Soon after the Armistice the Office of Works played a very great part in the erection of houses throughout the country, and I feel that the Home Office ought to obtain the co-operation and the assistance of the Office of Works in the erection of houses for this purpose. Local authorities ought not to be expected to become responsible not only for housing the inhabitants within their area, but the police officers as well. I raise this point in the hope that the Home Secretary will give some consideration to the matter. If powers are not within his scope that will enable him to carry out this work at the moment or to embark upon this policy, I hope, in view of the importance of the question, he will be prepared, at least, to submit the matter to the Cabinet in order to see if we cannot have a different policy from that which obtains at the present time.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): It seems almost as if my Estimates were again under discussion, because no less than six questions have been raised this afternoon on the Administration of the Home Office. Perhaps it will be more convenient if I dealt first with the question which has been dealt with by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) and by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes). It is quite true that the provision of houses for the police is a matter of very great
difficulty. As the hon. Member for Edge Hill said quite truly, there is a rent allowance for the police, a maximum, I think, of 15s. 6d. per week for married constables, and 18s. per week for married sergeants. That, of course, in most districts is a sufficient rent allowance for these men, and, I think, I may say that since I have been in office there has been no complaint as to the amount of the rent allowance. There have been complaints —and I agree that a very difficult question has been raised by the hon. Member for Edge Hill—in regard to those policemen who have purchased or have built their own houses and who, having let portions of those houses, have met with difficulty with regard to the question of rent allowance. The hon. Member for Edge Hill told me that I was not to say that I sympathised with the police with regard to this difficulty, because he knew that I did. That is quite true. It is a very great difficulty indeed. I strongly support, and I have always done so, the building of houses and the ownership of houses, particularly by men in established forces such as the police force. I believe that throughout the country it would be for the benefit of the police force itself if more and more men owned their own houses.
I appreciate the difficulty the hon. Member for Edge Hill raised. I do not think for a moment that many of the members of the police force would adopt those expedients which he suggested might be adopted with safety to enable them to get rid of the difficulty, presumably by putting their houses under some other ownership and taking the rent allowance as if they were tenants. There is, I admit, a temptation to do that. But the police have always played very fair with the Home Office and with the different Watch Committees, and I do not want even to suggest that that kind of thing is going on on any great scale. I do not
think that it is. On the other hand, I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable, if possible, to prevent the cause of the grievance. The matter has been brought before me, and I have had great difficulty in regard to it. The hon. Member must remember that I am not in sole control of the police outside the Metropolitan area. There are the Watch Committees and the Standing Joint Committees who are in an independent position,
and I have not the same power in regard to them and their actions as I have in regard to the Metropolitan police. This I will say to the hon. Member who has brought the matter to my notice so fairly. I will personally go into the matter once more and see if there is anything I can do to meet the point he has raised. The other point which was raised by him and by the hon. Member for West Willesden, opens a much more difficult question. Large numbers of houses are being built by local authorities and other bodies. I want to dissent at once from the suggestion that the police are not entitled to their fair proportion of such houses.

Mr. VIANT: I did not suggest that.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am saying that in order to prevent anybody else suggesting it. The hon. Gentleman went almost as far by saying that if a policeman got a council house it caused dissatisfaction amongst other members of the community who had not been successful. I want to lay it down perfectly clearly, that the police officer is a member of the community just as much as the tinker, tailor or baker, and he is entitled, not to privileges with regard to council houses, but to have his application considered just as though he were not a member of the police force.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I gathered from my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden that certain authorities were building blocks of houses for habitation by police. I think he mentioned Oxford. I would like to ask whether it is the policy of the Government that that should be done, and whether they think it is a desirable thing that the police should live in dark walled-in blocks of this kind?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is quite a different point. The matter I was discussing related to the ordinary houses built by local authorities, whether the London County Council or other authorities, and I was saying that it is desirable that the police should have the same fair play as they would be entitled to if they were not members of the police force. On the other hand, I am responsible with regard to the Metropolitan Police for the provision of houses for police officers. The hon. Member
had seen a statement that I had had the privilege of opening some large new married quarters in the centre of London which provide accommodation for 72 policemen and their families, which, I suppose, pro tanto, shows the housing accommodation in that immediate district. I cannot say more than that is, within the limits of the finances of which I have control, the policy we are continuing and shall continue. I think those responsible for the police force should do all in their power to take their fair share of the housing difficulty. On the other hand, I am sure the hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that where it is not possible—and it is certainly not possible for me to build blocks of houses in the suburbs of London—to house the police they must get their accommodation, receiving their rent allowance, in the same way as other people have to get theirs, and that they should have neither greater nor less favour from the local authorities than is shown to other members of the community who are not members of the police force.

Mr. VIANT: If I may be allowed to make the position clearer, I should like to point out that I was asking whether it was possible to supplement the houses that were being erected by local authorities wherever that was possible.

7.0 p.m.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It really is not possible for me to enter into schemes all over the suburbs of London. As the hon. Member knows, there is not the concentration of police in the outer circle as there is in the central part of London. The demand is greater in the central part than in the outskirts. All I can say at present is, that I am frequently in consultation with local authorities, and anything I can do to expedite the housing of the police in London localities I will do. I hope that all those who are interested will see to it that fair play is given to the local policeman if he wants to obtain a council house.
With regard to the point raised by the hon Member for West Willesden, so far as London is concerned a new block was opened last year in Crawfurd Street, Paddington. Other local authorities, for whom I am not so personally responsible, have
the power to erect blocks of dwellings for the police. It does not happen on such a great scale, as the hon. Member suggests, that the police are segregated in barracks; nothing of the kind. I have seen instances where, at the junction of two or three villages, the local local police reside close together. That may be convenient because, if a particular policeman is called away, it is of advantage to have another policeman living nearby who may be called on in the event of trouble. In any case, the thing is on a, very small scale, and I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing in the shape of police barracks.
In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) it is quite true that he saw the Under-Secretary. The facts which the hon. Member mentioned were at once considered, and the prisoner was immediately put on to light work. There is no question whatever that he is being injured by that work. The papers were immediately forwarded to the magistrate, and I regret to say that I have not yet had any recommendation on them. The hon. Member only sent me his letter about 10 minutes before he got up to speak, awl if I had had information that he was going to raise the matter today I would have telegraphed asking for the magistrate's opinion.

Mr. GROVES: I offered to raise it, either to-day or to-morrow, according to the right hon. Gentleman's convenience.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but when a whole lot of questions are raised in a Debate it is the opinion, not of the Minister but of the House, that they should all be raised at the same time, and there are other questions of equal importance with that of the hon. Member which it is desired should be raised immediately. I will, however, inquire of the magistrate, and endeavour to get an answer by to-morrow. If the matter is not raised in Debate to-morrow, I will endeavour to see the hon. Member him self.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It appears to me that the facts in question are not in conflict. If they be true, and if the man comes out, as I understand, on Monday, it is probable that an injustice
will have been done. The least that could be done would be to release the man before Monday if an injustice has been done, and that is what the hon. Member for Stratford asks.

Mr. GROVES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any action with the local magistrate if he ignores the Home Secretary? What action can we take?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The House must understand that I cannot pre-judge the case. The hon. Member for Stra[...]ford has, I understand, seen the magistrate. I sent the papers to the magistrate a few days ago. The hon. Member must not assume, and I cannot assume, that the magistrate agrees with his views. Everyone will realise that it is quite impossible for the Home Secretary to enter into the full details of the thousands of cases that are decided in London every week. I will telegraph to the magistrate now, and ask him to let me have a answer, and then I will see the hon Gentleman to-morrow. I think he will realise that no Home Secretary can do more than that. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) raised a question with which, I am sorry to say, I have the very greatest sympathy. It was with regard to the Wandsworth Prison Boys' wing and the Borstal esstabtishments in this country. I think the hon. Member was a little hard on the Wandsworth Prison. The Boys' wing is entirely detached and was used previously for women. This wing is a very useful institution for collecting in a center boys from all over the country who are sentenced to Borstal treatment. They are collected at Wandsworth, and are examined, mentally and physically. A very careful investigation is carried out to see the type of boy each one is, his type of mind and his physical condition, in order to decide to which particular Borstal institution he shall be sent.
As the House knows, there are three Borstal institutions at present, one at Portland, one at Rochester, and a third at Feltham. These institutions are all different in character. The boys are brought to Wandsworth in order that the prison governor and the doctors shall examine them. Investigations are carried out—by voluntary workers—into the condition of their homes, into the
kind of men the boys have been mixing with, and the temptations they have had to meet, in order that they may advise the governor and the Prison Commissioners as to which particular Borstal Institution the boys should be sent in order that they may have the best possible chance of making good citizens when they come out. Wandsworth is also used for the ordinary imprisonment of lads under 21 who are sentenced to short terms. You cannot send these lads to Borstal. Borstal is of very little use, under two years or something like 18 months, in which to get a boy really started, mentally, morally and educationally and, from the labour point of view, to teach him a trade, and so forth. My hon. Friend has been to Wandsworth, and I have been there. I say quite frankly that it is not an ideal place for these particular boys.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is good enough for Communists!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would not have them sent to Borstal, at all events. I do want to get a better place for these lads than Wandsworth Prison, and I have quite recently been investigating the possibility of doing so. The Borstal Institutions themselves are overcrowded. We have three institutions, and the total average population has grown from 937 three years ago to 1,154 at the present time. The normal population of the three Borstal Institutions which I just mentioned should not exceed 240 for each one.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman mean that the number of boys sentenced to Borstal is growing? In other words, do they mean that the number found guilty of crime is growing?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number sentenced to Borstal is growing, because I am glad to see that there is a feeling on the part of the Judges and the magistrates that they should send these lads to Borstal institutions, and not to prison. That is the reason why the number is growing, but I do not want the House to assume for a moment that juvenile crime is growing. It would be
to the pecuniary and economic advantage of the nation if I could be given another Borstal institution.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman, then, say that juvenile crime is decreasing?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All crime is decreasing, I am very glad to say. I have said so, over and over again.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is different in Scotland.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has more knowledge of Scotland than I have.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Have not the cases with which you are now dealing arisen directly from unemployment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. I do not think there is any connection with that at all. The hon. Member for Dumbarton is really putting a point which has nothing to do with the matter. That is the case, at all events so far as England is concerned; I will not answer for the position on the other side of the Border. I should like another Borstal institution, and I believe that it would be enormously to the benefit of this country if I could have one. It is merely a question of that troublesome finance which always dominates the House of Commons to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Economy!"] I do not think so, because the House of Commons this afternoon seems to greet my suggestion that I should have a new Borstal institution with pleasure. I think the House is right, and that it would be to the economic benefit of our country if we could take more of these lads and really train them to make decent citizens, rather than send them to prison, where they have not got nearly as good a chance as they have in the Borstal institutions. On the other hand, I am limited by finance. I can give no definite pledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley. This is a matter for the Prison Commissioners. I tell him, quite frankly, that the Prison Commissioners have been in consultation with me on this matter, and they are hoping, if in any way economies can be made in any other part of the Home Office Vote next year, to advise me to have a new Borstal institution.
Then I come to the charges made by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Mosley). He raised three cases. The first case was in regard to a mistake in the place where a Communist paper was said to have been found. He complained that in the statement in Court the paper was said to have been found at 16, King Street, and that the Blue Book says it was found at 38, Great Ormonde Street. The hon. Member is quite right. He has found a mistake in the Blue Book. The hon. Member had received an acknowledgment and an apology from the Home Secretary before he raised this question in the House. I do not like to say that the hon. Member reminds me of the man with the muck rake, but before I have finished I think the House will probably think that he does so. The hon. Member tries to find out any case he can which will reflect adversely on the administration of the police courts of this country. He began his speech by saying, "How many other errors are there in this Book?" I will tell him how many other errors there are. I am perfectly certain there are none, because, if there were, the hon. Member would have found them. I admit, quite frankly, that there was a mistake in one item, and in one name. In regard to that, the hon. Member has been informed, and an apology has been sent to him on my behalf; and I do not think he need have wasted the time of the House in dealing with it.
He also raised the case of Kate Gussfeldt, who was sentenced some little time ago for having a forged passport. The gravamen of the charge which the hon. Member made apparently is that Sir Wyndham Childs, in giving evidence as to the character of this woman at the Court, made some remark to the effect that she was associated with one Mrs. Helen Crawford, and that she went to stay with Mrs. Helen Crawford's brother-in-law. The hon. Member for Smethwick said that Mrs. Helen Crawford had no brother-in-law. I believe that is true; I believe she has a brother, a gentleman of the name of James Jack, with whom Mrs. Gussfeldt has been staying. The fact that Mrs. Helen Crawford was associated with Kate Gussfeldt is quite undoubted; it goes back so far as the last Government. I find, on going through the file of my predecessor at the Home Office, that on no less than two occasions
Mrs. Helen Crawford wrote to him about an extension of a passport for Kate Gussfeldt. On one occasion, Mrs. Crawford went so far as to say that she herself had invited Kate Gussfeldt to wait over the day, so that she might see Wembley before returning. Apparently, she anticipated that my predecessor would extend the passport for that purpose. I find, however, that he was not quite as sympathetic with Kate Gussfeldt's activities as the hon. Member for Smethwick, and that he was not inclined to extend her passport. Mrs. Helen Crawford wrote, on one occasion:
At this International Conference her work for our organisation"—
that was the Workers' International Relief Committee, of which Mr. G. Lansbury, a name well known to us, and Mr. Purcell, another name well known to us, are either members of the committee or vice-presidents, or they hold some other important official position—
is absolutely essential for the translation of the material gone through.
This, again, is a very small point, and it has been raised before. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) raised it a fortnight ago, but the point he took was that although she was known to be a spy, she has not been prosecuted for being a spy but for having a false passport. That is true. She was not an English spy. She was not spying on us, so far as we know, and there was no means under the Official Secrets Act by which we could proceed against her for spying in this country. It was notorious that she was an international spy whose presence here was no good to us. She had from time to time been here trying to evade the friendly notice of the police in this country, and when the police found that she was utilising a false passport to enable her to remain in this country, they prosecuted her, they rightly prosecuted her, and she was convicted, and rightly convicted.

Mr. MOSLEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he mind dealing with the case I put, and which he has so far evaded? The charge which Mrs. Crawford resents, which was made by Sir Wyndham Childs, was that she has assisted this other lady to evade the law by changing clothes with her. I do not know Mrs. Crawford or the other
lady, but the hon. Member for Bridgeton does know Mrs. Crawford, and I understand that the charge which she resents is that she assisted this woman to evade the law by changing clothes with her. Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence in respect to that statement? That is the whole question, and there is no other question.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has not put the point quite rightly. That is not the point. Does he deny that Mrs. Crawford changed clothes with her?

Mr. MOSLEY: I understand that Mrs. Crawford does deny it. I was not present.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that if the hon. Member had been present that that change could not have taken place. I do not think it is denied that they changed clothes. I think that what is denied is that the change took place in the train. That is the only denial that Mrs. Crawford has made through her solicitor, namely, that the change took place in the train.

Mr. MOSLEY: She denies that it took place at all.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My information is that there was a change of clothes, but the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Mosley) says that there was not. If he is prepared to say, on his own responsibilty, that there was no change of clothes, I accept it, but still I say that I am glad she has been turned out of the country.

Mr. MOSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman now admitting that Sir Wyndham Childs' evidence was wrong and that no such change took place?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am admitting nothing of the kind. The hon. Member does not feel inclined to make any definite statement about it himself. Now I come to the third case, which has really more of the muck-rake about it than the other two. It is the case of a man named Johnstone. The hon. Member says that he was driven to suicide through the way he was treated by the Secret Service; that he way deprived of money which he expected to get, was
turned out of his job as a spy, and that finally, in despair, he committed suicide. I am not going to say whether the man in question was a spy or not. I am not going to answer any question in regard to the administration of the Secret Service in this country. I think it was a former Prime Minister, the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, who once said, "If there is a Secret Service, it must be secret." So long as I am responsible for the administration of any portion of the Secret Service, I can say that, so far as I am concerned, it will be secret. It is true that this wretched, unfortunate man had been carrying on a clandestine intercourse with a woman other than his wife. I have here a report of the inquest, from the local paper. It is a full report; it was a full inquest. There is no earthly reason whatever for saying, as the hon. Member did, that the inquest was hurried so much that people were not allowed to give evidence, or anything of that kind. It was a perfectly straightforward, ordinary, common inquest on a man who had killed himself. The widow was present at the inquest. It may be true that the hon. Member has, with his muck-rake, got some information out of the widow which enabled him to make remarks about the treatment of the man by those who, he says, employed him. I am going to tell the House why he committed suicide, and in his own words.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who took the shorthand notes?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Here is a letter the man wrote. [Interruption.] I have not brought this matter before the House. I would have preferred, now that the poor wretched man is dead, leaving a widow and children, not to refer to it. It would have been very much better, after the inquest is over, that the thing should not have been raised. Here is a letter which he wrote to the woman with whom he had been living:
Darling,—Why did you leave me to-day while I was asleep? You left me without even a good-bye. Why? You have told me times out of number that you loved me passionately. You have been as a wife to me, and yet you leave me with only a halfpenny and a farthing with which to run mad round Southend to find you. You left me in my misery and to die amongst strangers.
You knew my only alternative and yet you left me. Oh! sweetheart, could you tell me what you have done and act like you have done to-day? I love you so much that I waited at the spot where you left me until it was dark, hoping against hope that you would return. God! To die amongst strangers is terrible, nevertheless. But it is retribution, no doubt. I die still loving you.—Harry.
He wrote to his wife:
My Dear Florrie,—It is good-bye, and, Florrie, please forgive me. Retribution has followed rapidly. God, if I could only see you and my children now, because they love me and I love them. Please don't make me out too big a blackguard to them. My heart is bursting.…Good-bye.—Harry.
It is a perfectly clear and simple case of a poor wretch who had forsaken his wife and children, whom he had loved, apparently, and got into the toils of a woman who lived with him, and who was actually with him the night before he died. The woman left him, whether after a quarrel or not I do not know, and he went out and poisoned himself. That there is anything whatever in the way of blame on his employer, or the Secret Service or any other employer in the land in this case, the hon. Member has no right to suggest, in the face of these letters written by the man. It is a sordid case, of which there are, unfortunately, as we all know, many which take place in the world. where a wretched man ends his own life, and there is no blame whatever upon the employer, who-ever the employer mar be.

Mr. PALING: You have evaded the whole point. It was part of the case that he was a spy.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINING INDUSTRY, MONMOUTH.

Mr. GEORGE BARKER: My story is not quite so sensational as the story which we have had from the Home Secretary, but it is a very sad story. I wish to bring to the notice of the Secretary for the Mines Department the condition of the mining areas of Monmouthshire. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for coming here to hear my statement. There is a colliery known as the Blaina, which belongs to the Ebbw Vale Company, and employs about 1,500 men. It is the only means of employment in that particular area. The area is one of the most unfortunate areas with regard to employment in the whole country. Now, the owners of this colliery have given their men notice that they propose
to close it. As a result, the inhabitants of the district have been filled with apprehension, and the whole community is threatened with disaster. The pit is a modern one. It has been sunk within the last five years. It is equipped with the very best appliances and machinery, and one wonders why this company has selected this particular colliery for closing down. The company owns about 20 collieries, yet they propose to close this one colliery upon which a whole community depend for their livelihood. My purpose in raising the question is to ask the Secretary for Mines to use his influence to try to avert the closing of this colliery. I suggest to him that the company should share their trade with all the collieries they own. To select one colliery, and that the only colliery in a district, for closing down, is to ruin absolutely the whole of that community. In the district there are many business men who have had to close their shops, and there are many others who are on the point of ruin.
I wish also to draw attention to another colliery which is being closed by the same company at Abercarn. This colliery, like the Blaina colliery, employs about 1,500 men and boys. It is an old colliery in one sense, but in another sense it is a new colliery. Within the last seven or eight years this company sunk a new shaft and equipped it with the latest modern machinery. The closing of this colliery will have something like the same effect upon this district as the closing of the pit in the Blaina district. Let me say a word in reference to Abertillery, which is a town with a population of about 30,000. A large amount of unemployment exists in this area. The colliery there, which usually employs about 800 men and boys, has been equipped with modern machinery, but it has never been worked since it was re-equipped. The policy adopted by companies of closing collieries for long periods is most disastrous for the people dependent upon them, and the suffering which arises from the present depression in the coal mining industry is accentuated by selecting particular collieries for closing down.
I do not want to deal with controversial questions like nationalisation, but I would suggest that companies should share their trade with all their collieries. It is most unfair to select
particular collieries for closing down. It brings terrible misery on the people who are affected, and it can be obviated. There is no reason why a company owning all these pits cannot share their trade among the pits and give everyone a chance of earning something during these terrible times. I strongly appeal to the Secretary for Mines to use his influence in this direction. The condition of this area is terrible in the extreme. It has been described by the Minister of Health as the worst area in the country. The rates are 27s. in the £, and the assessments have been increased 40 per cent. since 1914. There are large numbers of boys and youths in this area who have not worked since they left school. I hope the Secretary for Mines will give his special attention to this question, and do something to mitigate the misery which exists in these particular areas.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The hon. Member who has raised this question need have no doubt at all that he will have the sympathy of everyone when he describes the conditions existing in these areas. No one who knows anything about mining districts and what happens when a pit closes, the one source of the industry and wealth and prosperity of the little community, can doubt the real tragedy it is, and no one can contemplate anything of this sort without feeling the deepest and fullest sympathy. With regard to the first colliery the hon. Member mentioned, he only gave me notice of the subject a short time ago, and I have had no opportunity of getting any information about it. However, I will make inquiries into that matter. As regards the other two cases, I have received information about them in the ordinary way, and, in both cases, the reason given for the closing of the pits was want of trade. I am afraid I have no power to make a colliery company open its pits if it does not pay them to do so, and the fact remains that it is obviously more economical to work a certain number of pits full-time rather than a larger number of pits short time. If a colliery company feels that it can do better by working a smaller number of its pits during this time of depression, I am afraid it will be somewhat difficult for me to say anything which will induce them to change their decision. In each
case we are informed that they hope it is only a temporary closing. I hope things will improve in the near future and that the closing of these pits is only for a temporary period. No owner of a pit would deliberately close it out of wickedness—

Mr. BARKER: I did not suggest that.

Colonel LANE FOX: The greatest safeguard against pits being unnecessarily closed is the heavy loss which that would entail. That is, in my opinion, a very effective safeguard. I need hardly say that any influence I can bring to persuade colliery owners to keep their pits open shall be used in that direction, but I consider that it is absolutely unnecessary for me to do so. The average colliery owner knows the great loss and distress which is caused to the community by the closing of a pit, and also the loss which is entailed on the company, and on that account they are strongly opposed

to any unnecessary closing of a pit. I am sorry I cannot say more than this at the moment, but the hon. Member only gave me a very short notice that he intended to raise this matter. That is about all I can say at the moment.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time, put, and agreed to."

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[The Attorney-General.]

The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 104.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 3.—(Prevention of intimidation, etc.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 9, after the word "works" insert "or carries on business."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is little more than a drafting Amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that the language in Clause 3 of the Bill shall follow exactly the language in the corresponding section of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906.

8.0 p.m.

Sir H. SLESSER: This time we can congratulate the Government on having moved an Amendment of their own. The learned Attorney-General says that this is a proposal to assimilate Clause 3 to the Act of 1906. He omits to state that the whole object of Clause 3 is to destroy the picketing section of the Act of 1906. Therefore, in that sense, why we should agree to limit such little liberty as is left to the picket under the Act of 1906,
by agreeing to cover the whole area of the 1906 Act in this Bill, we do not quite see. As a matter of fact the position is this. Under the 1906 Act power is given peacefully to persuade others or to communicate information. Where there is violence, or threat of violence, that is already made illegal under the Act of 1875. This Clause says that even if you are endeavouring peacefully to persuade others, or to communicate information, if you are doing that outside a person's house, you are doing something which is calculated to intimidate—we shall discuss the whole meaning of intimidation in a moment—although that was already permitted under the Act of 1906. In this section the words "or carries on business" do not appear, and, therefore, in so far as we believe that this Clause is destroying the picketing section of the Act of 1906 we shall most certainly not agree so to assimilate the Act of 1906 that the whole of that Act will be destroyed. I agree that this is a small point, but, in so far as it exists, it is one of the safeguards still left to the picket. I believe my hon. Friends will certainly not agree with this Amendment.

Miss WILKINSON: I feel very grateful to the late Solicitor-General for bringing this matter before the House, although I do not agree with him, if I may respectfully say so, on one point, and that is where he says that this is merely a minor point. It seems to me that if this House agrees to this Amendment it will be a very grave decision. The Clause already says,
where a person resides or works or happens to be"—
and this Amendment proposes to put in the words
or carries on business.
I object to this Bill because, if it is worked as it is intended to be worked, it will prevent the intimidation of the blackleg at his home or at his work, but, if these particular words are carried, it means that no kind of picketing will be possible in any place where picketing is likely to be of benefit.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Hear, hear!

Miss WILKINSON: The hon. Member opposite says "Hear, hear!" That is an example of the total ignorance of the Conservative party. When a person,
from the comfort of the Conservative benches in this House, with a comfortable home and comfortable income—as I believe is the case with most of our Conservative Members—calmly says "Hear, hear!" at the idea that picketing should be made illegal, it does really show an absence of understanding of what an industrial dispute is like.

Sir B. FALLE: Thank you.

Miss WILKINSON: I am glad the hon. Member agrees with me. Now we can get on. If you are going to stop picketing altogether you might just as well stop strikes altogether, and say that strikes as a whole are to be illegal. Instead of having all this circumlocution, why not merely say that strikes are to be illegal? If you are going to lay it down that, wherever a person carries on business, picketing is not to be allowed, that there is going to be no picketing of the employers' works, or in any place where a person happens to be, or where a person carries on business, then where on earth are you going to picket? This Amendment seems to make the Clause infinitely worse, although it was bad enough at the beginning. If it is carried, the whole industrial population will know that, although the Government does not propose to make strikes as a whole entirely illegal—it dare not do that, it dare not go to the country on that—it does say that it will make it as difficult as possible to carry on a strike in the future. The only strike which the Government considers legal is a strike where the workers cannot hope to win.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is basing a large argument on a very few words.

Miss WILKINSON: I hope I am not going beyond the confines of order, for, although the words are very few, I want to suggest that they are very important, and it is vital that, if we are going to have every type of picket in every possible place made illegal, even at this late hour most strenuous opposition should be offered to this Amendment to put these words into this Clause.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 187. Noes, 107.

Division No. 308.]
AYES.
[7.39 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Drewe, C.
Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Apsley, Lord
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Loder, J. de V.


Atkinson, C.
Ellis, R. G.
Lougher, Lewis


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, L. R.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Forrest, W.
Macintyre, Ian


Berry, Sir George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.


Bethel, A.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macmillan, Captain H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bowyer, Capt G. E. W.
Gates, Percy
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Malone, Major P. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'v)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Margesson, Captain D.


Burman, J. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meller, R. J.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Campbell, E. T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hawke, John Anthony
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nuttall, Ellis


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Clarry, Reginald George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Clayton, G. C.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Ht. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
penny, Frederick George


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Perring, Sir William George


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pllcher, G.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Radford, E. A.


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsden, E.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rye, F. G.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Salmon, Major I.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lamb. J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Sandon, Lord
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Savery, S. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Shepperson, E. W.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Withers, John James


Skelton, A. N.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wolmer, Viscount


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Watts, Dr. T.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Storry-Deans, R.
Wells, S. R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.



Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.


Templeton, W. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
F. C. Thomson.


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, Walter
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley. J.
Kirkwood. D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lee. F.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Campton. Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtie, Ernest


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
March. S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Becwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead. Richard C.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mosley, Oswald
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grundy. T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)



Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James



Question. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put. and agreed to.

Division No. 309.]
AYES.
[8.7 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir Jamas T.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Radford, E. A.


Apsley, Lord
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ramsden, E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Atkinson, C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rye, F. G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Salmon, Major I.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Headiam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Berry, Sir George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bethel, A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandon, Lord


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hills, Major John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Briscoe, Richard George
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepperson, E. W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Campbell. E. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Starry-Deans, R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Chapman, Sir S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Templeton, W. P.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Clayton, G. C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lougher, Lewis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace. Captain D. E.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lumley, L. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Macintyre, Ian
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
MacMillan, Captain H.
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Malone. Major P. B.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ellis, R. G.
Meller, R. J.
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Elveden, Viscount
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Withers, John James


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wolmar, Viscount


Forrest, W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L


Ganzoni, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gates, Percy
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Gower, Sir Robert
Pennefather, Sir John



Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Major Cope and Mr. F. C Thomson


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perring, Sir William George



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pilcher. G.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Groves, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Clowes, S.
Grundy, T. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Baker, Walter
Dennison, R.
Hardle, George D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Duncan, C.
Hayday, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hayes, John Henry


Batey, Joseph
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.


Broad, F. A.
Gillett, George M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bromfield, William
Gosling, Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bromley, J.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Greenall, T.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)




John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Potts, John S.
Thurtie, Ernest


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Townend, A. E.


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, Ben
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kennedy, T.
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Wallhead, Richard C


Lansbury, George
Scurr, John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lowth, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wellock, Wilfred


Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)
Westwood, J.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan)
Smillie, Robert
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mosley, Oswald
Stephen, Campbell
Windsor, Walter


Murnin, H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, E. A.



Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Paling, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Whiteley.

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 25, after the word "family," insert "or to any of his dependants."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree, with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment which I think was moved by a private Member in another place, and it was received without opposition from any quarter. I think it was felt that there might be people who were dependent and still were not legally members of the family—for instance, an illegitimate child who was living with her father or mother or somebody of that kind. It was felt that it would be reasonable that there should not be allowed to be threats to injure such a person who was in tact a dependant, and, therefore, this particular dependant is to be treated as a member of his family.

Mr. THOMAS: If any proof were needed as to the absurd and ridiculous position in which the Government are placed under this Bill, it is to be found in this Amendment. In the first place, this well-considered, well-drafted, well-defined Bill, goes through this House and reaches another place, and no Member of the Government either in this House or in the other place thought this was necessary. Then some private Member says: "Ah! But these wicked trade unionists, there is no knowing what they will do. They are the real people. They will find out. They are so anxious that they will actually go to Somerset House, or some other place, and find out that there is an illegitimate child, and
it will be the illegitimate child that they will be after in order to injure it." We will simply vote against this Amendment as another illustration of the absurd and ridiculous situation which has been brought about by the whole Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Attorney-General might have said a little more about this matter. The Lord Chancellor appeared to think that this wits a rather important Amendment because in another place he said in regard to it:
I thought I should like to hear your Lordships' views about this. I cannot find any adequate answer to it, and I am disposed to accept it, but I must make the reservation that if a different view is taken in another place I must not be said to have given a pledge.
That was following on the speech of Viscount Bettie of name who moved the Amendment and on a speech by the Earl of Halsbury who seemed dubious about the purport of the Amendment. The Attorney-General might have treated this House with a little more consideration and explained more fully why this Amendment has been accepted by the Government when the Lord Chancellor seems to think dial there might be a case against it.

Mr. SEXTON: We have had four months of wordy warfare in reference to this ridiculous Bill, and it seems to be a waste of energy and intellect to endeavour to persuade the Government of how ridiculous they are making themselves, even in the eyes of their own party. Even their own House of Lords is ashamed of the ridiculous character of this Bill. I do not think that even the House of Lords or the Attorney-General would
argue that this Amendment applies only to illegitimate children. It would cover anybody who could claim relationship—the sisters and the cousins and the aunts and anyone who could in any way be described as dependent upon the man concerned. I am not so grateful as my right hon. Friend who spoke earlier, for the sop thrown to Cerberus, but, as I say, it is a waste of breath to talk about the matter, and I merely wish to enter my protest and to point out that in endeavouring to remedy the effects, of their colossal ignorance of trade union conditions, the Government are only landing themselves deeper into the mire.

Mr. HARDIE: These words give me the feeling that the purpose behind this Measure is being widened. Supposing a workman comes from Glasgow to Acton and starts work there. Supposing a strike takes place in Acton, and that he continues work there, while his wife and family are in Glasgow. If news of the strike reaches the district where the wife and family live, and if someone should seem to scowl at the wife or the members of the family, will these words apply? Or supposing the man's grandfather happens to be living at Rothesay or some other place like that, and the old gentleman feels that someone has scowled at him, will such a case come within the meaning of these words? Is it the intention that these words should include anyone not related to the man who may be staying with him? We have many cases of people living in the same house between whom there is no relationship at all. Under present housing conditions both in Iondon and Glasgow, we find many cases where several families occupy one house. Do these words mean that all the people in such a household would be counted as dependants—because a previous Amendment has made it quite clear that wherever a workman is to be found, and whoever are his dependants, all are to be included under this Measure?
Is it then to be understood that intimidation may take place in reference to every dependant concerned, whatever the circumstances may be? I know a man who is working in London and a strike is threatened in his trade. His wife and family live in Glasgow. He has a brother who is in a fairly good position,
and who provides a house for the wife and family. Are the members of that family dependants of the man working for wages here in London or are they dependants of the more well-to-do brother who pays the rent and taxes of the house in which they live, or is the responsibility divided between the two brothers? The Government are adopting every fiendish argument that it is possible for human devilment to think out, and I hope the Attorney-General will give us some light upon the question of whether these words apply to the cases I have cited.

Mr. MARCH: I wish to add my protest against the insertion of these words in the Bill. One might think that Members in another place had tremendous foresight in raising this matter and I think the original Mover of the Amendment must have been thinking about the discussion earlier to-day when the Home Secretary answered a question with regard to a man who was not satisfied with his own wife and who took another woman. Presumably it is thought in another place that a man might not be satisfied to live at home with his wife but might have another woman dependant upon him and that she might be looked at askance during a strike. The second woman might turn out to be rather contrary as in the case about which the Home Secretary answered today, where the woman went away and left the man, who was so upset about it that he destroyed himself. All this shows what those in another place know about trade unionists. I have been wondering also about the case of a man who keeps fowl or rabbits which are dependent upon his earnings. During a strike, someone might look at the rabbits of the fowl and I think the rabbits and the fowl might have been added in these words. The proposals have been made so ridiculous already that it would be no harm to continue the process a little further. He might also have a dog, and he, might look rather askance t that dog if the man was out on strike, especially if the dog came out into the roadway anywhere near where the picket was going by. Naturally he would look very carefully and not give it a pleasant look, and that would be something for them to take to Court to interpret whether he had or had not done something wrong. The statement made by the hon. Member for
Leith (Mr. E. Brown) goes to show that the Lord Chancellor himself thought the Amendment was a bit ridiculous, but he came to the conclusion, apparently, that it did not matter, and that if they sent it back, the other House would accept it and swallow it as though it were good, substantial stuff to put into the Bill.

Mr. BATEY: I also want to enter my protest against the insertion of these words. The Bill originally was bad enough, and this Clause was bad enough when it left this House, but it is only what we might have expected that when it came back from the other place it would be worse still, because there is no question that these Amendments stamp the other place as being merely the saloon bar of the Conservative club. Whatever the Conservative club says has to be, the other place is willing to carry out. The Attorney-General says that these words were inserted as moved by a private Member in the other place. It is no use trying to put the blame on a private Member, because it is the Government representatives in the other House who are to blame. I wonder what is the object of the Government in accepting these Amendments? In the Committee stage in the other House one Amendment was accepted, and the Government made them reject it on the Report stage, which shows that in the other place they just have to do what the Government tell them to do. What was the object of putting in these words? Was it to make this Clause more ridiculous than it was, or was it to make it more vicious? My own opinion is that the intention was to make this Clause Lore vicious and more bitter towards the trade unionists of this country than it was before.
This Clause makes picketing absolutely impossible, and in that sense the Attorney-General strikes a blow at the primary strike. He makes the primary strike impossible because he makes picketing impossible. But it is not merely with pickets that this Clause deals. It deals with any member of a trade union acting on behalf of a trade union, and if any member of a man's family or any of his dependants have an apprehension of injury from any member of a trade union, they can take action, and that trade union member can be sent to prison for three months. I had a case put one
day at one of the public meetings which I was addressing, when it was said, "Suppose an official of a trade union was going down a street, and he was cross-eyed, and suppose he met one of these individuals coming along the street and did not look straight at that individual? Could this particular individual complain of an apprehension of injury because he had met a trade union official who had not looked him straight in the face?"

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The observations of the hon. Member would seem appropriate to the next Amendment.

Mr. BATEY: I was saying that this Amendment, in my opinion, makes this Clause more vicious and shows the bitter Tory mind towards trade unionists. The words "any member of his family," that were in before, were bad enough, but the Government are now adding the words "or any of his dependants," and the Attorney-General says that that means if a man has illegitimate children. That simply makes it far more ridiculous than it was before. It might be said of a lot of trade unionists that their dog was dependent upon them, and I wonder whether the Attorney-General would go a little further than he has gone and try to define what, after all, is the real meaning of this word "dependant." Does it include a man and his dog? That is just as sensible a the meaning which the Attorney-General has already given. We condemn this Bib altogether. We consider that this was a bitter, bad, vicious Clause before, but that the inclusion of these words just shows how far the Tories are prepared to go in order to push the working classes further down into poverty.

Mr. WESTWOOD: There is a further reason why this Amendment ought not to be accepted. In the Bill there is a definition of a strike and of a lock-out, and, of course, we all know what a man's family is, but there is no one here who can properly define what is meant by a dependant. There will be no definition in this Bill of a dependant, and I submit that what the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has already pointed out must be accepted. It could be proved quite well that a horse was a dependant of an individual. We have recently read of the death of a man who owned a
number of horses, which had to be sold, as they were dependent on him. There is no doubt that pet animals kept by individuals very often have to be sold when their owners die, and, therefore, they may be said to have been dependants. It might improve this Amendment if the Government had gone to the Old Testament, where you get the Ten Commandments, one of which lays down certain definite instructions, to this effect:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, not his manservant, not his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's,
and it seems to me that what they should have suggested here is simply to have put in the word "picket." It would have been a vast improvement, for it would then have read:
Thou shalt not 'picket' thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not 'picket' thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
I submit that this would have made the Bill more understandable than it will be by putting in such a stupid thing as "dependants" without defining what dependants are.

Miss WILKINSON: I suggest to the Attorney-General that probably he has not considered what might be the effect on a perfectly inoffensive private individual of the insertion of this word "dependants." We all know how many private things may happen through the passing of any Act of Parliament, however carefully drawn, but when you are dealing with a Bill like this, drawn up so hastily, conceived in such malice, and then patched up equally hastily by a House of Lords to whom it was committed at the end of a Session, you may find, and with regard to this particular Amendment you will find, that it has very far-reaching effects on the perfectly inoffensive public. The Bill made it clear that its provisions related to people actually concerned in a dispute, the workers on strike, or locked out, the pickets, the employers, and the Government. They were made clear as the people actually concerned. Of course, the strikers or the pickets would be the only persons who could be proceeded
against. We have had it very definitely from the Attorney-General that anything that may bring a man into ridicule or contempt may be regarded as evidence under this Bill. I presume that when the Attorney-General framed the Measure he did definitely intend that it would only be a striker or a picket who was committing an offence. I ask the Attorney-General to consider what would be the effect of inserting this word "dependants." Let us suppose that two persons are having a hot argument about a strike in a neighbouring public-house, one man defending the strike and the other man defending the employer. As far as the man who is defending the employer is concerned, he is merely having an argument with an ordinary member of the public and nothing that he says is any offence under this Act. Then suppose that the other man turns round and uses abusive language. The man who is defending the employer may then call in a policeman and may say: "I want to give this man in charge because I am the dependant of a striker and because he is using words against me" That clearly would be a case under this Trade Disputes Bill.
I want the Attorney-General to imagine the point. You cannot put a man in gaol so long as he keeps within the bounds of decent language for anything he says to an ordinary citizen during a dispute. At least you cannot do so at present, though I have no doubt that if the Mussolini-like propensities of the Attorney-General are allowed full play, it will not he long before we get to that stage. But as the law stands at present you cannot prosecute a man because in the heat of an argument with another ordinary citizen he says bitter and abusive things or even threatening things—well, there are fairly wide limits under the common law as to what a man may say. Under this Bill, however, there are few things indeed that you may say at a time of a strike to anyone who is remotely connected with it. You will be able to prosecute a man who uses what we should call "firm language"—I am not saying improper language. You cannot proceed against him if he is using that language to an ordinary citizen, but you can immediately proceed against him and put him
into gaol for three months if he uses that language to anybody remotely connected with the strike, if the latter man can say, "Ah, but this man did know I was connected with the strike; I am a member of the family of a striker"—a son, a brother or a father, and so on. It could be said that the man was not innocent because although he might not know all the ramifications of the relationship it could be assumed that the relationship was known; but now that we are introducing "dependants" the Attorney-General must see how enormously the field is widened. So long as the man making the complaint can show any kind of dependency, the other man becomes liable to three months in gaol.
Earlier this afternoon we discussed a very sordid matter, which makes one realise in what danger the ordinary citizen is placed by our present Home Office. Despite the Home Secretary's refusal to give us any information with regard to his use of spies over certain sections of the workers' movement, his very hesitancy, his very words, made it clear that the unfortunate man did act as a spy upon a certain section of the workers' movement.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Lady to establish the connection between these remarks and the insertion of the word "dependants."

Miss WILKINSON: I think I can establish the relationship. Those of us who have had any part in strikes of any importance know, as a matter of fact, that agents-provocateurs are used by this Government during a strike. Everybody knows that during the recent miners' dispute, in certain areas, notably in South Wales, the strikers' organisations did have police spies amongst them. The point I want to make is that a Government anxious to trap certain individuals who were regarded as of some importance hut were not making public speeches might take steps to involve them in an argument. A police spy obviously cannot claim relationship with a man, because that is a matter of evidence and

he would have to produce evidence of relationship—a birth certificate perhaps—but when it is a question of dependency there would be nothing so easy as for the police spy to produce in Court evidence that he was receiving an allowance from one of the strikers or one of the men locked out—one of the parties to the dispute. That would establish dependency, and then this man, who had thought he was discussing the dispute with an ordinary member of the public, might find himself liable to be put into gaol because, in fact, he had been discussing it with someone who had an undisclosed private relationship with someone connected with the strike. The Attorney-General smiles.

While that may not happen if the police do not want it to happen, it would be the easiest thing in the world for the police to arrange for if they did want it to happen. If the Attorney-General wants evidence of that may I remind him of a case discussed in this House which is exactly parallel with what I am putting forward. That was a case in which Mr. Bolton, chairman of the urban district council in the Chopwell area, and Mr. Will Lansher, a member of the executive of the Labour party, were in a public-house and a man who for all they knew was a private citizen, but was in fact a plain clothes policeman, entrapped them into making statements, and they got two months in gaol. By bringing in this word "dependant" it is possible not only to bring strikers within the law but also private citizens, because the question of dependency is very vague. By inserting this Amendment the House of Lords have vitiated any claim they may have to be a revising Chamber in the public interest; what they have shown is that where the Conservative party is as bad as it can be the Lords are prepared to go even one worse.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 198: Noes, 119.

Division No. 310]
Ayes.
8.47 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Atkinson, C
Bellairs, Commander Cariyen W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bean, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Apsley, Lord
Barclay-Harvay, C. M.
Berry, Sir George


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bathel, A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hawks, John Anthony
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.
Rentoul, G. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth).


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rye, F. G.


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major John Walter
Salmon, Major I.


Burman, J. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burton, Colonel H W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Howard-Bury, Lieut. -Colonel C. K.
Sandon, Lord


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Savery, S, S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hunter-Weston, Lt. -Gen. Sir Aylmer
shepperson, E. W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Skeiton, A. N.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jephcott, A. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Clarry, Reginald George
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir George
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colman, N. C. D.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Storry-Deans, R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lougher, Lewis
Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Templeton, W. P.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lumley, L. R
Thom, Lt. -Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovli)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Drewe, C.
Macintyre, Ian
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macmillan, Captain H,
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ellis, R. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elveden, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Everard, W. Lindsay
Malone, Major P. B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otiey)


Fermoy, Lord
Meller, R. J.
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fleiden, E. B.
Merriman, F. B.
Watts, Dr. T.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells, S. R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Forrest, W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gates, Percy
Nuttall, Ellis
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grant, Sir J. A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Withers, John James


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pennefather, Sir John
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Perring, Sir William George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hacking, Captain Douglas N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hammersley, S. S.
Pilcher, G.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.
Young, Ht. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radtord, E. A.



Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsden, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —




Major Cope and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Charleton, H. C.
Greenail, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clowes, S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Groves, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, Walter
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barnes, A.
Dennison, R.
Hardie, George D.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Hayday, Arthur


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dunnico, H.
Hayes, John Henry


Broad, F. A.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)
Hirst, G. H.


Bromfield, William
Gardner. J. P.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bromley, J
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibbins, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Buchanan, G.
Gosling, Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)




John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Potts, John S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Haughton-le-Spring)
Townend, A. E.


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, Ben
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kennedy, T.
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lansbury, George
Rose, Frank H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lawson, John James
Scurr, John
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, F.
Sexton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lindley, F. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wellock, Wilfred


Lowth, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Westwood, J.


Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, W.


MacLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smillie, Robert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mosley, Oswald
Stephen, Campbell
Windsor, Walter


Murnin, H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, E. A.



Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Paling, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Henderson.

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 26, leave out from the second word "injury" to the end of the Sub-section, and insert
to a person in respect of his business, occupation, employment or other source of income, and includes any actionable wrong.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words "and includes any actionable wrong."
This Amendment was inserted at the last stage of the Debate in the Lords, and I can foresee the gravest difficulties arising from the insertion of the words "actionable wrong." The House will remember that we are dealing here with an apprehension of injury; that is to say, if you cause in the mind of a person a reasonable apprehension of injury—and a person now includes his family and his dependants—that is intimidation within the meaning of this Bill, and is also intimidation within the meaning of the Act of 1870. "Injury" is now defined to include any actionable wrong. What does that mean? Obviously, it is not limited to the loss of any of his property, of his business, occupation or employment, or other source of income, but must include the fear of defamation. If it can be shown that a picket has caused, in the mind of the dependant of a person who wishes to work or whom he pickets, a reasonable apprehension that that dependant is going to be called something in the future which at some time or other will give him a right of action for slander, that is criminal intimidation within the meaning of this Clause. In
other words, this Amendment restores the words "hatred, ridicule or contempt," which we discussed at such length at an early stage of this Bill. I am sure the Attorney-General will agree with me that "actionable wrong," including, as it does, a libel or a slander, would include any words tending to hatred, ridicule or contempt; so that all that this Amendment does is to put into one word the one thing which we understood was going to be taken out of the Bill. It is merely calling it by another name.
Who is to decide whether it is an actionable wrong or not? The picket is brought into Court, and it is said against him, "You have caused a reasonable apprehension that somebody is going to have inflicted upon him an actionable wrong. You have caused a reasonable apprehension that this person to whom you have spoken will at some future date bring an action for libel against you." Whether that wrong, if it be a wrong, is actionable or not, cannot be decided until the action is actually brought in Court. The man may raise the question of justification. He might say, "What I said about you was true"; or "What I said about you was privileged"; or, "What I said about you was not defamatory" or, "It did not refer to you"—all very interesting points to be decided in a law-suit for libel. But all this is to be decided in advance when a man is brought up on an accusation of intimidation under this Clause. And, of course, it does not end there. Any other kind of wrong, and there are thousands of them, might be the subject of a reasonable apprehension of an actionable wrong. I
discover that in another place it was definitely admitted by the Government that these words "actionable wrong" were not limited to physical or proprietary loss, because Lord Halsbury took this very point, and said that the words were unnecessary. I do not want to quote what happened in another place, but it was quite clearly admitted there, and it will be admitted here, that the words "actionable wrong" here are not limited to any loss of property, goods, employment, or anything of the kind, and that a man's fear of being called an unpleasant name would be sufficient to bring it within the definition.
What does that mean? It means that if in a trade dispute a man has a reasonable apprehension that someone at some future time will call him a blackleg—not that he has been called a blackleg, but that he has an apprehension that he will be called a blackleg at some future time—if that apprehension is reasonable, it is intimidation. Whatever justification may be urged against extending the present law, which, I think rightly, limits the protection of the person picketed to acts of violence or threats of violence, there is no justification for extending it to libel. I want the House to realise that, at any rate in my opinion, we are restoring the words "hatred, ridicule and contempt." I believe that the hatred, ridicule and contempt which will result from this Bill will fall on the Government, and not on the pickets, but let us be quite clear. Although we are using another form of words, we are back exactly where we started at the Second Reading of this Bill. Therefore, in order that the Government may clear up what otherwise can be fairly said to be something not quite consistent with what I understood to be their policy at that time—namely, to exclude the words "hatred, ridicule and contempt" from the Bill—I submit that the words "actionable wrong" should be left out, and the protection definitely limited to fear of physical or proprietary wrong, without going into the obscure and uncharted regions of all actionable wrongs whatever.

9.0. p.m.

Mr. OLIVER: If I had known that the ex-Solicitor-General was going to move this Amendment, I should have suggested
that it might be made considerably wider than he has made it. I should have suggested the deletion of further words, namely, the words "other sources of income." We are indebted to the other House for one thing, and that is that by their Amendment they have removed, at any rate, the ambiguous Clause on which there was so much controversy in this House during the Committee and Report stages; but, while they have removed the ambiguous Clause which contained the words "other than physical and material injury," they have done so at a price which has extended the scope of the old Clause, by adding the new words contained in their present Amendment. Let the position be envisaged of a picket approaching a man. In many industrial areas we have men who, while following their occupation, keep and maintain small businesses. I know of one case where the man follows his employment and he and his wife keep a public house; and we know of men who follow their daily occupation and also sell the produce from their allotments. If one of these men happened to be working during a dispute, and were approached by a picket, and the picket said, "Never again will I deal with you," then, under this provision which has been introduced by the Lords, because the threat if carried out would be interfering with one of the sources of the man's income, it would be competent for him to bring a prosecution against the unfortunate picket. We are all entitled to refuse to trade with anyone we choose, but in this case, if a picket makes that suggestion to a man who is at work during a dispute, and carries it out, he has a right to bring the picket to the Police Court, and the picket may on summary conviction be sent to prison for three months. I do hope that the Attorney-General will look at this matter from that point of view.
The other point that was raised by the ex-Solicitor-General was in connection with the phrase "any actionable wrong." This Clause sets out with great precision many things that a man must not do. He must not threaten, he must not strike or use bad language. These are phrases which are well understood by the average man who may be picketing; but, when you tell a picket that he is liable for
any actionable wrong, it will be most difficult to convey exactly to his mind the limits of actionable wrongs. When this Clause was being discussed in this House, the Home Secretary laid it down time and again that the principal reason of the Government for inserting this Clause was to make the law clear to the average man. But I defy anyone to say you can convey to a picket adequately what an actionable wrong would be. I notice that in another place this matter of actionable wrong was dealt with by the Lord Chancellor on an Amendment bringing it all down to material, as distinct from moral injury, and the Lord Chancellor said:
There are many actionable wrongs which are neither physical nor material injury, and they will come within this Clause.
Would it be a fair assumption that if "actionable wrong" includes other than physical and material injury, we come back to the old words which the Lords have left out, namely, "other than physical and material injury," and include what the ex-Solicitor-General stated, namely, slanderous statements. I should be very much obliged if the Attorney-General would deal with that point.
As the Clause is at present drafted, the law is extremely unfair. If a man's income is assailed, the power to bring his assailant into the Police Court is certainly in favour of a man who is at work as against the man who is not at work. To give a simple illustration. Let us take two persons where a dispute is in progress, one at work and the other not. If the man at work is approached by a picket, who says, "I will have nothing to do with you. I will not trade at your shop when the dispute is over," he has a right to bring a prosecution against the picket because he fears loss of a source of income. But the Government say nothing of the blackleg interfering with the source of income of a man who is out in the dispute.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going beyond the immediate point before us. The only point before us is whether these last words of the Lords Amendment" and includes any actionable wrong," should or should not stand part of the Lords Amendment. We are not entitled at present to go back either to
the other part of the Lords Amendment or to the original Clause.

Mr. OLIVER: I was trying to connect the actionable wrong and the loss of income and to show that it makes the Clause extremely unfair as it stands at present. If these words "actionable wrong" are voted upon and moved out of the way and I have an opportunity to speak at another stage, I shall be very pleased to do so.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is connecting the two together, he can take them now.

Mr. HARDIE: These words, so far as Scotland is concerned, take us back some hundreds of years. We are now going to bring back the old days of the evil eye. Anyone casting an evil eye or suspected of witchcraft is going to be included. In many working-class districts there are working men who own small shops. Suppose a strike takes place, and the owner of a shop is a blackleg and gets in some rather bad ham and butter to sell. Is apprehension going to give the basis of an actionable wrong if people cease to buy his goods because they are not up to the standard? The position is quite clear when you take it in another phase. I know working men who own small motor cars which are used, especially on Saturday evenings, for going between certain villages. The owner of one of these cars may be working during a strike. If the people in the village who are on strike refuse to patronise these cars, will that be an actionable wrong? It seems to me, as in the last Amendment, that every element of evil in the legal mind, and the illegal mind, has been brought into play to try to make everything as humiliating as possible for the people who are fighting for a higher standard of living. An actionable wrong, as understood in Scots law, is something tangible. Apprehension is not tangible. If apprehension had been tangible, there would be no need for the words in the Bill. Here again is the whole of that evil mind expressed in trying to use words which make it possible for anyone sitting on the Bench to have full scope in order to wreak his vengeance. While most magistrates are unprejudiced, we have to face the fact that in industrial areas we have partisans on the bench everywhere, and these words are going to give them the power to
wreak whatever vengeance they have in their minds towards those who are brought before them.
The Attorney-General has never yet dealt clearly with what is meant by "reasonable apprehension." Are we to include or to exclude the passing of one another on the road? One man may not look at the other. The other man will say, "He used to look at me as we passed. Now he looks away from me." Is it to become an actionable wrong? Are we to interfere with the thoughts of the individual? Are the Government going to establish a magistrate as a thought-reader to say what one man was thinking of the other when he passed him on the road. Are we not now going back 400 years, or perhaps more, in giving power to people acting in the name of justice to carry out every form of injustice that can be conceived by the Conservative mind?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I ask the House to reject the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) to omit these words. The hon. and learned Member began his speech by telling us he foresaw the gravest difficulties in these words "actionable wrong." Those who have followed these Debates through the various stages in this House will remember that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been full of the gloomiest forebodings throughout the passage of this Bill, and that he has gloomy apprehensions as to the effect on the Government. I can assure him that his apprehensions in the one regard are as unfounded as they are in the other. The hon. and learned Gentleman in discussing this Amendment referred to its history in another place. If he had studied that attentively he would have found, as I am sure most of the House will realise, that the Amendment which he is now seeking to alter was an Amendment which was introduced and accepted as a concession in order to meet the point which the Opposition raised that the original words were too vague in their language. The original definition was "'injury' includes injury other than physical or material injury." As that was too vague a definition, it was suggested, on behalf of the Government, on the Report stage, that the words which we are presently going to discuss should be substituted in order that that
apprehension should be met. The hon. and learned Gentleman now wishes still further to limit the words by leaving out the expression that injury "includes any actionable wrong."
The illustration which the hon. and learned Gentleman chose, I think, was a singularly unfortunate one from his point of view. He took the case of a man who was threatened with libel and slander, and he said what, a scandalous thing that it should be possible for man to object to threats of being libelled and pilloried up and down the country. In his view, it is a fair thing to try to stop a man from conducting a lawful occupation by threats that if he continues with it, lies will be told about him up and down the country. Because the House will remember, that if you tell the truth about him, that is neither libel nor slander. I can think of few better illustrations of the sort of mischief which ought to be stopped than the coercion of some unfortunate man who wants to work by threats that he will have lies told about him wherever he is if he dares to go to work.
The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) gave us his somewhat gloomy forebodings as to the effect in Scotland, and he said that the evil eye of witchcraft might be threatened. He told us that by the law of Scotland only something tangible was an actionable wrong. I do not profess to be an authority on the law in Scotland. Fortunately, I have sitting near me someone upon whose opinion I can rely. (An HON. MEMBER: "He goes as far as Carlisle.") At any rate, he knows more Scottish law than the hon. Member who was talking about the evil eye.

Mr. HARDIE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I said the whole of this was going to bring back what used to he known in Scotland as the evil eye. The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood me, and I can vouch for the statements I made on facts related in evidence in the Courts of Scotland.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate assures me quite definitely that the evil eye is not and was not an actionable wrong by the law of Scotland, and, therefore, the threat of the evil eye in Scotland would not he covered by the words of the Amendment, because
it would not be threatening an actionable wrong. The hon. Member was not much more fortunate when he said that an actionable wrong meant something tangible. A threat of violence is an actionable wrong.

Mr. HARDIE: May I point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman in dealing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-east Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has just been pointing out the very reverse? What about your position now with regard to the meaning of the word "tangible"?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: By "tangible," I mean something that can be touched.

Mr. HARDIE: Exactly.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then the hon. Member will realise how entirely mistaken he is in supposing that by the law of Scotland or by the law of England only something tangible is actionable wrong. There are lots of intangible things which are actionable wrongs. I will give an illustration—a threat of violence: another one—a libel or a slander. This Amendment as it stands will not make anything an actionable

wrong which is not an actionable wrong to-day. The hon. Member can go on thinking what he likes of me, and he will not do me an actionable wrong. But all that this Lords Amendment provides is that if people threaten to commit actionable wrongs against other persons in order to coerce them, it shall be a penal offence. It is very much what was said by a famous Lord Justice some years ago that it visits certain classes of acts which were previously wrongs, that is to say, were at law civil torts, with penal consequences capable of being summarily inflicted. That is the purpose of the Clause, and I venture to think that in making the concession which the Government agreed to make in another place we went to the extreme limit of concession, and that people ought not to be allowed to try to coerce others not to exercise their legal rights by threatening actionable wrongs against them if they dare to undertake what they are legally entitled to do.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 114.

Division No. 311.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cope, Major William
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Haslam, Henry C.


Apsley, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hawke, John Anthony


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Atkinson, C.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Drewe, C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hogs, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Berry, Sir George
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hopkins, J. W W


Bethel, A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Ellis, R. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Elveden, Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Briscoe, Richard George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fermoy, Lord
Hurd, Percy A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Burman, J. B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jephcott, A. R.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Forrest, W.
Kennedy A. R. (Preston)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Campbell, E. T.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Cassels, J. D
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gates, Percy
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Christie, J. A.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Loder, J. de V.


Clarry, Reginald George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lougher, Lewis


Clayton, G. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lumley, L R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hammersley, S. S.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Harrison, G. J. C.
MacIntyre, Ian


Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
McLean, Major A.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rentoul, G. S.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rice, Sip Frederick
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rye, F. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Malone, Major P. B.
Salmon, Major I.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Meller, R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Merriman, F. B.
Sandon, Lord
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watts, Dr. T.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smithers, Waldron
Withers, John James


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Viscount


Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Perring, Sir William George
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Storry-Deans, R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Philipson, Mabel
Strauss, E. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Pilcher, G.
Sruart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Radford, E. A.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsden, E.
Templeton, W. P.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Captain Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York., W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Mayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Board, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
March, S
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Westwodd, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Mosley, Oswald
Wilkinson Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Den Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. A. Barnes


Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Illegal strikes and lock-outs.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 3, line 14, at the end, insert
Provided that no person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under any Regulations made under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. by reason only of his leaving ceased work or having refused to continue to work or to accept employment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Amendment is one which is designed to prevent any undue hardship being inflicted upon the individual
striker under Clause 1. The House will remember that in Committee in this House an Amendment was moved by the Government and accepted, under which it was provided that no penalty should be inflicted upon the individual striker merely for taking part in an illegal strike. It was suggested in the Debate in another place that it might be possible, under the Emergency Powers Act, to make a Regulation which would inflict a penalty upon a striker for merely taking part in a strike. I do not think it was a very probable contingency, but it was possible under the language of Clause 1 of the Bill. The Amendment now under consideration is designed to ensure that, neither in the Regulations made under the Emergency Powers Act nor under this Clause, shall it be possible
for the person who merely takes part in a strike to be subject to any penalty for so doing.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I cannot quarrel, in one sense, with the description which the learned Attorney-General has given to this Amendment. Hon. Members will be missing a good deal of the history which has brought this Amendment on the Paper if they do not realise that, first of all, this Amendment was moved, if not by myself certainly by a Member of the Labour party in this House, although on the general principle that any Amendment moved from this side was to be rejected with contumely, the Attorney-General did not accept the Amendment at that time. Secondly, the learned Attorney-General referred to the fact that this Amendment was moved in another place. He omitted to say that it was moved by a Member of the Labour party in another place. The truth of the matter is that the Attorney-General and his advisers completely overlooked the fact that under the Emergency Powers Act it would be possible to prosecute a striker if you suspended the proviso which now prevents you from prosecuting a striker. From his point of view, no doubt, he would like the House to believe that this proposal is a very small and slight thing. This provision arises from the fact that it was the intention of the Government, until quite late in the proceedings on this Bill, to make the individual striker liable for striking, under a criminal prosecution. Owing to the attack which was made on the Government because of this iniquitous proposal, and when by-election after by-election had shown the unpopularity of the proposal in the country, the Government finally climbed down and cut out of the Bill the power to prosecute the individual striker. The facts remain, however, as an earnest of what their idea was when they first introduced the Bill. They certainly intended to make the individual striker liable.
One other matter should be mentioned on this Amendment. The Amendment does not follow the language of the Emergency Powers Act. The Emergency Powers Act says that you shall not prosecute a man for taking part in a strike, and the strike which was there contemplated was the strike of men leaving
their employment. Until this Bill was introduced there never had been in any Statute or even in any dictionary anything which led one to suppose that a strike would include the case of a man refusing to accept employment. It is interesting to observe that though the Emergency Powers Act refers to a strike as we always understood it until this Bill was introduced, that is, merely leaving employment, this Amendment says that it shall not be an offence by reason of a man "having refused to accept employment." We know what happened in another place. On the Committee stage the Government took out the definition of a strike, and particularly the obnoxious feature that a refusal to accept employment for insufficient wages or under conditions, however bad they might be, was an offence under the Bill. On the Report stage they put it in again. That was an indication of the intention of the Government at the last stage of this Bill. Now the Government have to admit that their Measure would make a strike illegal not only if people leave their work, but even if, after they have been locked out or for any reason they think fit, they refuse to accept employment, however bad it may be. That is why we find in this provision the words "refuse to accept employment."
The proviso, as hon. Members will see, takes away the criminal liability. Therefore, it is unobjectionable: we can scarcely say it is objectionable, because we moved it. If persons are not now to be prosecuted for refusing to accept work the thanks are due to the Labour party and not to the Government. But for this Amendment every striker who refused to accept employment could have been prosecuted under the Emergency Powers Act Regulations and could receive three months imprisonment. Let the House be assured that if we are not challenging this particular Amendment it is because we ourselves are responsible for it, and if the Government had accepted it at an earlier stage there would have been no need to trouble this House and another place with it.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is not quite accurate in saying that this particular Amendment was moved by the Labour party in another
place. What is true is to say that a form of words which had some relation to this was moved, and the Lord Chancellor promised to give it consideration, and it was the Lord Chancellor who moved the form of words of this Amendment, as will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates in another place. It is as well to make that correction of a statement which may be repeated in the country. Although I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this Amendment is an improvement, yet the House may be interested to know that when the Lord Chancellor gave notice that he would move this Amendment Lord Thomson was "very grateful to the Noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack." Therefore there was not quite the same feeling with regard to this Amendment in the other place.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The House will feel deeply grateful to the last speaker for reminding it of two things, first that there is no other Liberal champion present.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: You are quite wrong.

Mr. THOMAS: I apologise to the Liberal party. I did not see the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am sure the House will be very much indebted to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) for explaining one fact to the country, and, secondly, for reminding the House that whatever else may be said he wants to let it be strongly emphasised that there are still some Liberal Peers. It is perfectly true that this Amendment was moved from these Labour benches in the Committee stage of this Bill. The Attorney-General then said something entirely different from what he has said to-day. The Secretary of State for War was not here at the time and knew nothing about it, and we are more concerned in talking to those who do know. When the Amendment was moved from these benches the Government found valid reasons against it. The reason why we do not propose to divide on this Amendment is, first, that it shows the justification of the original Amendment which we moved, and, secondly, that it emphasises the stupidity of the Government and leaves the Liberal party bankrupt,
and incidentally it justifies the late Prime Minister in adding to the dignity, ability and common sense of the other place.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): would not have intervened but for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman pointedly referred to my ignorance upon the subject. I remember one thing that he seems to have forgotten. When the Bill was introduced the Labour Party said that under no conditions would they attempt to improve the Bill. I imagine, however, that this Amendment is being accepted by the Labour Party because they think it improves the Bill. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has claimed it as a great merit that this Amendment was proposed by a representative of his party in the House of Lords, and presumably in order to improve the Bill. Because the Government accept the co-operation of the Labour party in improving the Bill at long last the right lion. Gentleman says that I know nothing about it.

CLAUSE 5.—(Regulations as to organisations of which established civil servants may be members.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 8, line 6, leave out Sub-section (2) and insert:
("(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, any established civil servant who contravenes the Regulations made under this Section shall be disqualified for being a member of the Civil Service:
Provided that in the case of a first offence a civil servant shall forthwith be warned by the head of his Department, and the said disqualification shall not take effect if within one month after such warning the civil servant ceases to contravene the said Regulations.")

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir HARRY FOSTER: I want in a few sentences to express my satisfaction at this Amendment, which I tried in vain, both in Committee and on Report, to induce the Government to accept. The Sub-section, as originally drawn, was that if a man committed an offence, however slight, there was no remedy, and he became disqualified, ipso facto, and that was the end of it. By this very just Amendment there is what I believe the legal gentlemen call a locus penitentiæ. For the first offence he is cautioned and power is given for him to be excused if he ceases the offence. I beg to thank the Government and the other House for the Amendment.

Mr. THOMAS: In a sentence, we must not be taken, because we assent to this Amendment, as associating ourselves in the least with the penal Clauses in regard

to civil servants. We are thankful that there was a Labour Peer in the douse of Lords and thankful to the Peers in the other House generally for having had more common sense than the Government.

Mr. KELLY: There are some people, such as the hon. Member for the Central Division of Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster), who are very easily satisfied. I confess I am not at all satisfied with this Amendment. The mere fact that the penalisation is not as heavy now as it was before, and that there is a month's grace given, is not making the Hill any better. It is still a vicious Measure, and could only be brought forward by people with vicious minds.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to persons employed by local and other public authorities.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 9, leave out from the word "to" to the word "he' in line 11, and insert "cause injury, or danger, or grave inconvenience to the community.'

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[The Attorney-General.]

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 121.

Division No. 312.]
AYES.
[9.37 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ganzoni, Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy


Apsley, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grant, Sir J. A


Atkinson, C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colfox, Major William Phillips
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Colman, N. C. D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bollairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hammersley, S. S.


Berry, Sir George
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbre)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bethel, A.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hartington, Marquess of


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hawke, John Anthony


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Drewe, C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ellis, R. G.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Barman. J. B.
Elveden, Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fielden, E. B.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.


Campbell, E. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cassels, J. D.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Forrest, W.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Chapman, Sir S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hurd, Percy A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hurst, Gerald B.


Christle, J. A.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Jephcott, A. R.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Pennefather, Sir John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Penny, Frederick George
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Templeton, W. P.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perring, Sir William George
Thom, Lt.-Col. J, G. (Dumbarton)


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Philipson, Mabel
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pilcher, G.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Loder, J. de V.
Radford, E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lougher, Lewis
Ramsden, E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lumley, L. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


MacIntyre, Ian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watts, Dr. T.


McLean, Major A.
Rye, F. G.
Wells, S. R.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macquisten, F. A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sandon, Lord
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Malone, Major P. B.
Savery, S. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Wise, Sir Fredric


Meller, R. J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Withers, John James


Merriman, F. B.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Womersley, W. J.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Smithers, Waldron
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.



Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


O'Connor, T, J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Captain Viscount Curzon and


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Captain Margesson.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Storry-Deans, R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Blower-man, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montross)
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Strauss, E. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kennedy. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edge, Sir William
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.



Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MONEYLENDERS BILL.

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Licences to be taken out by moneylenders.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 2, line 27, at the beginning, insert:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, moneylenders' Excise licences shall be in such form as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may direct, and shall be granted on payment of the appropriate duty by any officer of Customs and Excise authorised by the Commissioners to grant them, and Regulations made by the said Commissioners may make provision as to the procedure to be followed in making application for moneylenders' Excise licences:
Provided that.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This, really, is a drafting Amendment for the convenience of the moneylender. The Commissioners of Excise have probably the power now to make Regulations with regard to applications. This Amendment is to make it quite clear so that moneylenders who desire to make applications for licence will know where to go and in what form the application should be.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I do not desire to detain the House at any length on this Amendment, but I want to enter my protest as to the way the House is being treated in regard to the proceedings on this Bill. I think it shows a want of respect to the dignity and reputation of this House. I sat on the Committee upstairs which considered this Bill for some considerable time, and for some weeks we did not have the assistance of any of the Law Officers of the Crown; in fact, it was only at the very end of the Committee stage that we were able to get them to attend. All I want to do now is to say that this Bill left the House of Commons on the 4th July and it was in the House of Lords on the 6th
July, but these Amendments were only available to Members of this House at 4 o'clock on Tuesday afternoon last, the 26th July. The House of Commons cannot allow its privileges to be shorn away in this way. I do not think the explanation given by the Lord Advocate in regard to this particular Amendment is sufficient. I do not think it is going to make the Bill any clearer than it was when it left the House of Commons. I do not know where the delay has been, but I do not think Noble Lords should try to ride roughshod over Members of the House of Commons in this way.

Mr. DENNISON: As a member of the Select Committee which was appointed by this House 2½ years ago to consider this question, I hope I may crave the indulgence of hon. Members while I put forward two or three considerations without keeping the House too long. It is extremely difficult to speak on a subject of this character, because obviously one may be very easily misunderstood—

Mr. SPEAKER: We can only discuss the exact Amendment which is now before the House. We cannot review the Bill as a whole, or the other proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. DENNISON: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. My lack of experience in this House led me astray. With respect to the particular Amendment we are called upon to discuss at the moment, I want to point out that there are 19 or 20 Amendments and three new Clauses in the place of two Clauses which have been struck out. I submit that after we have given 10 days' consideration to this Bill in the Committee upstairs, with four hon. Members belonging to the Bar, as well as three solicitors, and two barristers on the Committee, we should riot be asked to accept the view of members of another place, who in the course of a short discussion of two hours consider that they can submit something which is better than we proposed upstairs. The Committee upstairs discussed this Bill line by line for 10 days. It was only discussed for two hours in the House of Lords, and I submit, quite seriously, that it is not a sound reflection on the good sense of this House that we should be asked to accept the view of a few people in another place without any consideration. I may be a humble Member of this House, but
I desire to uphold the dignity and responsibility of this Chamber as against the decisions of another place.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 3, line 5, agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Certificate required for grant of moneylender's Excise licence.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 3, line 26, at the end, insert:
so, however, that within any part of the Metropolitan Police district for which a police Court is established, a certificate shall not be granted except by a police magistrate.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This deals with the special position of boroughs in the Metropolitan area. Police magistrates have power to deal with pawnbrokers' certificates, and they also sit more regularly than Justices of the Peace in London. It is considered that they are the proper Courts to which they should come in the Metropolitan area.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Suspension and forfeiture of certificate, etc.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 39, leave out the words "the Moneylenders Acts, 1900 and 1911," and insert:
Section two or four of the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892, or the Moneylenders Act, 1900.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of the Bill as drafted would be really to leave no offences under the 1911 Act. Therefore, we propose to take out the whole of that Act, as there is nothing left in the matter of offences. On the other hand, this Amendment puts in the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act of 1892, and I submit that this Act should be in because it makes it an offence to send moneylenders' circulars to infants or to solicit them to make affidavits in connection with any loan.

CLAUSE 5.—(Prohibition of money lending, circulars, etc.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 7, leave out lines 12 to 16.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, taken in conjunction with the next Amendment which it is proposed to insert instead of the words which are now taken out, is really a drafting Amendment. The benefit of the substituted Amendment is that it deals with loans not only where the interest is stated but also where the rate of interest is not stated. Another objection to the original draft is that it uses the phrase "document sent under this Section." The words substantially have the same effect in their redrafted form.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: As one who is supporting the fundamental principles of this Bill, I am not at all satisfied with the explanation of the Lord Advocate, because the cause of this Measure is the sending of circulars by moneylenders broadcast. I should have thought that the words in the lines we are now discussing covered the very point we dealt with in Committee upstairs. I do not think the Lord Advocate has given us a sufficient explanation as to what the deletion of these five lines of the Bill mean. For instance, we delete the words "any advertisement, circular, business letter, or other similar document." I want to know whether prohibition against sending circulars occurs in the Bill later.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Words are substituted.

Mr. DAVIES: The Lord Advocate knows very much more about the law than I do. It is very seldom I pay a tribute to a Scotsman in that way. But if he had sat in the Committee upstairs when we dealt with the Bill, I feel sure he would have heard of the difficulty that people experience in connection with the receipt of circulars from moneylenders. Until we get an explanation from the Lord Advocate that the word "circular" or the word "document" will cover circular as included in the Bill elsewhere, we cannot accept the Amendment. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate can give that explanation, but we cannot leave the matter where it stands at the moment.

Mr. J. BAKER: I sympathise with the difficulty of the Lord Advocate, because he is in exactly the same mess as we were in when we discussed this Clause in Committee and could not get legal advice to help us. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had turned up at the Committee probably he would not have got us out of the fog, because he has not done so now. This was one of the thorny questions before the Committee—as to whether moneylenders should be allowed to send out a business card, and if they did, at the request of someone, send out something, what they should state on the document. It was for that reason that two nights ago I helped to block this Bill, because I thought that this House was not being treated fairly. This Bill was on the Order Paper two nights ago, but it was only yesterday morning that I received the Lords Amendments. If it had not been for an accident, this House might have put the Bill through two nights ago without an opportunity having been given of discussing these Amendments which, to say the least, are complicated and comprehensive, though they may make the matter clearer than it was made by the Committee. I am not raising objection to the Amendment, but merely to the method that the other side have adopted in transacting their business in connection with this Bill.

Lords Amendment:

In page 8, line 1, after the word "sum," insert "or other valuable consideration."

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It was suggested in another place that there might be a consideration other than that of money which might be used for the purpose, and therefore it was right to put in these additional words to cover such a case.

10.0. p.m.

Mr. DENNISON: I would like to have from the Lord Advocate some explanation as to what may be meant by "other valuable consideration." It is a very wide term. In Committee we discussed this
matter at considerable length. We had four King's Counsel and other members
of the Bar on the Committee, and they all differed as to what was meant by a phrase something like this. Now we have the Lord Advocate telling us that he agrees with the Amendment, and I think the House is entitled to know what he means by "other valuable consideration." I have read the Report of the Debates in another place, and there was there no explanation whatever given as to what the words meant. As a much more responsible body this House is entitled to know what the members of the legal profession, and particularly those in the Government, mean by "other valuable consideration." We were very much neglected in Committee by not having legal advisers present, but as the Lord Advocate is present to-night perhaps he will be prepared to tell us what these words mean.

The LORD ADVOCATE: May I make clear that I was not a Member of the Committee upstairs, and could not be present. I propose to take part in the Debate now because I am present. If the hon. Member will look at the Bill, he will find that the words are, "demand or receive directly or indirectly any sum by way of commission or otherwise for introducing or undertaking to introduce to a moneylender any person desiring to borrow money." The word "sum" clearly means a money sum, but it might quite well be that something, such as a side of bacon, was offered, something in kind, instead of a sum of money. That is an equally reprehensible method. The phrase "valuable consideration," as I understand it, would include both money and a consideration of any other kind. For that reason it is proposed to add these words so as to cover the alternative form of inducement.

Lords Amendment:

In page 8, line 3, at the end, insert:
(4) Where any document issued or published by or on behalf of a moneylender purports to indicate the terms of interest upon which he is willing to make loans or any particular loan, the document shall either express the interest proposed to be charged in terms of a rate per cent. per annum or show the rate per cert. per annum represented by the interest proposed to be charged as calculated in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the consequential Amendment to which I referred previously. These words are more comprehensive.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 17, leave out the word "void," and insert "illegal."

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
If a contract or a transaction of this kind is only void, then it merely means that the law will refuse to help that contract to be enforced. That is not what was meant by this House. In that sense the Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. DENNISON: I think it is well that we should have one or two more observations from the Lord Advocate as to the difference in meaning between the word "void" and the word "illegal." As I have already intimated—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not repeat the remarks which he has made on a former Amendment.

Mr. DENNISON: With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes necessary to repeat oneself. My view is that if it were necessary to substitute the word "illegal" for the word "void," surely we could have had that put in during the 10 days in which the matter was discussed very carefully upstairs by people, who, at any rate from the point of view of the country and of this House, are as capable of knowing what was the right word as those who are in another place. There is a considerable difference between the word "illegal" and the word "void," and it is not well for this House lightly to pass over this. This Bill affects a considerable proportion of the community, not necessarily moneylenders only, but it affects borrowers as well. I am speaking on behalf of both sections, not because I am going to borrow or to lend, because, as a Scotsman, I do not lend. My second reason for not lending is because I have nothing to lend. There is a great deal of difference between the word "void" and the word "illegal." [Interruption.] Very well; hon. Members opposite will be able to express their views, and I
shall be very glad to hear them. If it is legal, it means that from the very commencement of the transaction the whole business is illegal. If it is void, it means that a contract has been entered into in all good faith, and it is a matter for the people who entered into the contract as to whether they will honour their obligation. It was never the intention of the Select Committee or of the Committee upstairs that the whole transaction should be illegal. If it had been, they would have put the word "illegal" in instead of the word "void." Therefore, I strongly object to this Amendment. It was certainly not the intention of the Committee of this House or of the Select Committee that it should be inserted.

CLAUSE 6.—(Form of moneylenders' contracts.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 8, line 20, leave out the Clause and insert new Clause.

Form of moneylenders' contracts.

(1) No contract for the repayment by a borrower of money lent to him or to any agent on his behalf by a moneylender after the commencement of this Act or for the payment by him of interest on money so lent and no security given by the borrower or by any such agent as aforesaid in respect of any such contract shall be enforceable, unless a note or memorandum in writing of the contract be made and signed personally by the borrower, and unless a copy thereof be delivered or sent to the borrower within seven days of the making of the contract; and no such contract or security shall he enforceable if it is proved that the note or memorandum aforesaid was not signed by the borrower before the money was lent or before the security was given as the case may be.
(2) The note or memorandum aforesaid shall contain all the terms of the contract and in particular shall show the date on which the loan is made, the amount of the principal of the loan, and either the interest charged on the loan expressed in terms of a rate per cent. per annum, or the rate per cent. per annum represented by the interest charged as calculated in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree, with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think it is only right that I should give the House some explanation of this proposed new Clause. May I first of all
say that Sub-section (2) of the new Clause is similar to Sub-section (2) of the old Clause. Sub-section (1) of the new Clause really brings together Sub-sections (1) and (3) of the old Clause. The new matter is contained in Sub-section (1) of the new Clause. The Clause, as it stood in the Bill, was considered open to objection on three grounds; first of all that although it touches the original transaction for a loan, it does not touch transactions for security on a loan or affect the interest on a loan. They must equally be touched and affected in regard to the information that is to be given to the borrowers. The second point on which objection was suggested—and I remember there was some discussion about this in this House—is that the note or memorandum may be signed after the making of the contract, and, indeed, after the lending of the money. If you are going to see that the borrower is to be supplied with information on which le may properly judge as to whether it is a contract to be entered into or not, surely it is right to suggest that he should have that information before he makes the transaction and it is not enough to give him a copy of these things afterwards. The third point is this, that the Clause, as drafted, may he read so as to affect guarantors. I do not think it was the intention of the House to include guarantors, the reason being that the opening words are general, because the words are:
No contract for the repayment of money lent by a moneylender,
and the substituted clause proposes to make the matter clear by substituting for that the words
No contract for the repayment by a borrower of money lent to him or any agent on his behalf by a moneylender ….
Those words are inserted in order that it may be made clear that they do not affect a collateral guarantee.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The Lord Advocate has been no more clear in explaining this new Clause than he has been on previous Amendments, and, if I may say so, I imagine that the new Clause does not clarify the position very much. I only want to put two points to the Lord Advocate. They are these. What is the meaning of inserting the word "agent"? Can a borrower send another person on his behalf to borrow money?
Then, further, in the Committee upstairs we were confronted with the problem of suing a husband for the money borrowed by his wife. It seems to me that we ought to get these two points cleared up before we leave this Clause. Then, in the new Clause, I notice that the words "signed personally" are substituted, and I should be very glad if the Lord Advocate would make these points clear.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I notice that hon. Members on the other side are very hilarious and delighted. I do not suppose that they took very much time to consider the evidence from the Select Committee or anything else in connection with this matter. [Interruption.] I do not think the explanation of the Lord Advocate is a very clear one. It brings my protest, which I made at the beginning of the Debate, that here we are in this Amendment taking out one Clause entirely and substituting a new Clause which we have had no time to consider at all. The Lord Advocate has explained that Sub-section (2) remains the same, but that certain changes have been made with respect to Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3). I dare say hon. Members would be interested to know—

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order. Ought not all Members to address their remarks to you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan—

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I was addressing myself to you, Mr. Speaker, but I might have turned round in order to make my point quite clear to all the Members of the House, and to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has intervened. I noticed that in the Committee upstairs the hon. and gallant Member—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have nothing to do with the proceedings in the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I apologise, Sir. I was going to draw attention to the fact that a Clause, in the framing of which we spent nearly two days in Committee upstairs, has been dismissed in another place and
there has been substituted for it merely 12 lines, or about 50 words, with no explanation at all from the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment. To-night, for the first time, we hear two or three of the reasons why the new Clause has been substituted for the original Clause 6—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will only be patient I will state my view very briefly. I do not propose to weary them because I know they are anxious to get away. The hon. and gallant Member might make himself intelligible—[Interruption.] Well, if you want to lengthen the proceedings—

Mr. SPEAKER: The fact that the hon. and gallant Member is not addressing me leads to interruptions from the other side. He should put his arguments through me.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: For the second time I sincerely apologise. I suppose it is my failing as a Welshman that I am drawn aside from my argument by these interruptions. I do not think the explanation of this Amendment which has been given to us is sufficient and I sincerely regret the action taken in another place. It has forced upon this House at this late hour a proposal which could not be carried through the Select Committee when we fought the matter out there.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In the case of a Bill like this, on which there is a large degree of unanimity, it is not as necessary to discuss Amendments in detail, as it may be on other Bills, but that does not excuse the kind of statement which the Lord Advocate made when he said that Sub-section (2) as proposed in the Lords Amendment, was identical with Sub-section (2) of the original Clause. That hardly does justice to another place where in my opinion Sub-section (2) has been considerably improved. A distinction between the two Sub-sections is that one is 8½ lines and the other was only six lines, and I do not think they can be described as identical. Though these Amendments may not be controversial, I hope that the explanations forthcoming on them will be accurate and complete.

Mr. J. BAKER: There is one important difference between the proposal in this Amendment and the proposal in the Bill
when it left this House. The Committee which considered the Bill originally took account of the case of the man who wished to borrow in a hurry and who required the money in order to meet an emergency. This Amendment rules out such a case.

Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 13, line 10, agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Limitation of time for pro- ceedings in respect of money lent.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 14, line 4, leave out paragraph (c), and insert new paragraphs:
(c) If at the date on which the cause of action accrues or on which any such acknowledgment and undertaking as aforesaid is given by the debtor, the person entitled to take the proceedings is non compos mentis, the time limited by the foregoing provisions of this Section for the commencement of proceedings shall not begin to run until that person ceases to be non compos mentis or dies, whichever first occurs; and
(d) If at the date on which the cause of action accrues or on which any such acknowledgment and undertaking as aforesaid is given by the debtor, the debtor is beyond the seas, the time limited by the foregoing provisions of this Section for the commencement of proceedings shall not begin to run until he returns from beyond the seas, so, however, that Section eleven of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (which relates to the limitation of actions against joint debtors where some are beyond seas) shall have effect as if this Section were included among the enactments therein referred to as fixing a period of limitation.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Sub-section 1 (c) of Clause 13 was meant to relieve the lender. There is a 12 months' limitation, which is set aside in a case where there is some reasonable excuse for not being able to proceed with the action, and the reasonable excuse was originally defined as the "absence of the debtor from the United Kingdom, or other reasonable cause."
That is in somewhat vague terms. In fact, there are only three possible excuses. One is the absence of the debtor, the second is infancy, and the third that the party concerned himself is non compos mentis. A second objection was this, that the phrase used in paragraph (c) was "maintenance of proceedings," whereas
what we are concerned with is the beginning of the proceedings. Accordingly, this Sub-section has been redrafted in the form now proposed. The Amendment further uses the phrase "beyond the seas" instead of the phrase "from the United Kingdom." That is because of its effect on the Isle of Man and other places.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Being one of the unfortunate Members who sat on this Committee day after day to deal with these points, I must make one protest, along with the rest of the Members, at having this large number of Amendments thrown at us at this late hour of the evening. This particular point was one that was debated very strongly in the Committee, and it was really drafted in this way as a sort of compromise between two opinions on that Committee. I want to be assured that the moneylender will have power to sue, that if the man who has absconded returns to this country, he will come within the purview of the law. If the Lord Advocate can assure me that this Amendment indeed gives all that was desired in the original Clause, I am satisfied, but as a layman I cannot see the point.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member will read the Clause, he will see that it says the time
shall not begin to run until he returns from beyond the seas.
That means that from the moment he returns, it begins to run.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 16, line 30, after Clause 15, insert new Clause.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Notice and informa- tion to be given on assignment of money- lenders' debts.)

(1) Where any debt in respect of money lent by a moneylender whether before or after the commencement of this Act or in respect of interest on any such debt or the benefit of any agreement made or security taken in respect of any such debt or interest is assigned to any assignee, the assignor (whether he is the moneylender by whom the money was lent or any person to whom the debt has been previously assigned) Shall, before the assignment is made—

(a) give to the assignee notice in writing that the debt, agreement or security
1620
is affected by the operation of this Act; and
(b) supply to the assignee all information necessary to enable him to comply with the provisions of this Act relating to the obligation to supply information as to the state of loans and copies of documents relating thereto,

and any person acting in contravention of any of the provisions of this Section shall be liable to indemnify any other person who is prejudiced by the contravention, and shall also be guilty of a misdeamour, and shall in respect of each offence be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

(2) In this Section the expression "assigned" means assigned by any assignment inter vivos other than an assignment by operation of law, and the expressions "assignor" and "assignee" have corresponding meanings.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the following Amendment propose to substitute Clauses for Clause 16, to deal with the question of assignation. It is to make it clear that where there is an evasion of the provisions of the Bill, unless the assignee has got an assignment bona fide without notice that it was a moneylender's transaction that he shall be subject to the same disability as the person who assigns it to him. That in brief is the effect of these two Clauses. This Clause provides for the information which must be given to an assignee to make sure that any assignee shall be fully informed, and the next Clause deals with the position of the assignee who has received that notice.

Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 18, line 20, agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Short Title, Citation, construction, repeal, extent and com- mencement.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 18, line 29, at the end, insert:
Provided that Section one of the Moneylenders Act, 1911, shall continue in force as respects any agreement with or security taken by a moneylender before the commencement of this Act, or any payment or transfer of money or property made, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, on the faith of the validity of any such agreement or security.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with the same point, the repealing of the Act of 1911. We must safeguard any transaction that has already fallen under the Act of 1911, and that is the sole purpose of this Amendment.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 18, line 32, at the end, insert
Provided that—

(a) subject to the provisions of any Regulations or rules made under this Act, licences and certificates may be granted to moneylenders at any time after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven; and
(b) Orders in Council may be made under the provisions of this Act relating to Courts to which proceedings on moneylenders' transactions are to be taken at any time after the passing of this Act,

so, however, that no such licence or Order in Council shall come into force until the commencement of this Act.
Nothing in the foregoing proviso shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of Section thirty-seven of the Interpretation Act, 1889.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Under the provision of the Bill this Measure will come into force on 1st January, 1928. It was thought that it would be convenient to enable moneylenders to apply for and to get their licences prior to that date, in order that they may be ready to conduct their business under the new conditions as soon as the Act comes into force, and the object of this Amendment is to allow them to apply for the licence, and to provide for giving the Courts the necessary jurisdiction, which has to be done under Orders in Council.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The learned Lord Advocate has given us an explanation which deals only with half of the proposed Amendment. He has said nothing about (b), which reads as follows, and which I think the House ought to hear.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. and gallant Member had been listening to my closing words he would know that I did refer to it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Then the Lord Advocate must have done that very cursorily, and I think his explanation was quite inadequate. I submit that this is a matter which should not be left to an Order in Council. The County Court should have power to deal with ordinary actions under this Clause. We ought to satisfy ourselves that all the safeguards regarding the cheapness of litigation which apply in small monetary contracts shall be available to those who borrow from moneylenders. I am not content to leave it to an Order in Council to protect small litigants.

The LORD ADVOCATE: On a point of Order. I would like to know if it is in order to deal with a matter which has already been fixed by Clause 11? What we are now considering only affects the date at which Orders in Council may be made.

Captain GARRO-JONES: This proviso states very clearly in paragraph (b) that
Orders in Council may be made under the provisions of this Act relating to Courts to which proceedings on moneylenders' transactions are to be taken at any time after the passing of this Act.
It is a new proviso, and I think we are entitled to a fuller explanation.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is an additional proposal, and it does not derogate from the powers of the earlier part of the Clause.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I know it does not derogate from those powers, but I want to know how far those Orders in Council will carry us, and whether they will deprive us of any of our safeguards allowing us to apply to the lower Courts. If the Order in Council said that no action should be brought except before the King's Bench Division, that would be a lawful Order in Council, and therefore I think we should have some additional safeguard.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICES (SITES) BILL.

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to acquire lands.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 2, line 29, leave out the word "December" and insert "October."

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a very small Amendment. Compulsory powers are taken under the Lands Clauses Act, and it is provided that those powers shall be used within three years after the passing of the Bill. The Bill provided that the power to purchase lands compulsorily should cease on the 31st December, 1930. It is now proposed that, instead of December, the month should be October, which makes a difference of two months.

CLAUSE 7.—(Correction of errors in de- posited plans or books of reference.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 7, leave out the Clause, and insert a new Clause.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment. There have been many—

Mr. CRAWFURD: On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is in order that this Bill should be taken when it is not on the Order Paper? A similar point occurred the night before last, and you gave the ruling that, using your discretion, you had decided that the Amendments concerned were purely drafting Amendments. The House, naturally, bowed to your ruling. I do not, however, think it can be suggested that these Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. We have had no notice, and it seems to me to be going rather far to take them, since they are not on the Order Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point, because I find that I was mistaken in the Ruling that I gave on the occasion to which he has referred. The discretion with regard to Amendments which, in the opinion of the Chair, are purely drafting Amendments, applies to the taking of Lords Amendments at the time of Private Business at the beginning of the Sitting. At the stage at which we have now arrived, the remedy is not with the Chair, but with the House. When I put the Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," it would have been competent for an hon. Member at that stage to move that the Debate be adjourned. I put that Question to the House, and it was agreed to by the House.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I accept your ruling, of course. May we take it that it is within the competence of the Government to bring forward any business, whether it be on the Order Paper or not, and leave it to hon. Members to resist?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is competent for the Government to make the proposal to the House; it is for the House to say whether they will accept it or not.

Captain GARRO-JONES: On that point of Order. I should like to submit that this is a case where the rights of the minority are in danger. It is well known that, if the minority were to bring forward a Motion that the Debate be adjourned, they could not pass it, and, therefore, it appears to me that the large majority of the House could always take advantage of the ruling you have just given to carry business which is not on the Order Paper. I should like to ask you Sir, whether there is not some other safeguard against an infringement of the rights of the minority, such as this, I submit, undoubtedly is.

Viscount WOLMER: Perhaps I can allay the anxiety of the hon. and gallant Member by assuring him in the most positive and explicit manner that there is nothing in this Amendment that is not of a purely drafting nature, as I can explain directly the point of Order has been disposed of.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I should like to say at once that I would not for a moment
suggest that the Noble Lord is trying to take advantage of us in any improper way, but I do think that, apart from this particular Measure, the general point is one of very great interest, and that the considerations advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend are very relevant and powerful. It does seem to me to be wrong that any Government should be able to bring forward any Measure which hon. Members cannot possibly have a chance of considering, because they have a majority and can force the discussion through.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member may take it that I should do what appeared to me to be necessary to protect the rights of the minority if it appeared to me that they were being infringed. I have looked at these Amendments, and I can see nothing in them that really affects the rights of the minority in this House.

Viscount WOLMER: Dealing purely with this Amendment, and without touching on the much larger question which the hon. Member has raised, I should like to assure him that the putting in of this new Clause by the House of Lords, instead of Clause 7, is merely a drafting Amendment. The origin of it is simply this: For some years past there have been Post Office Sites Bills, and they have always contained, roughly speaking, the same provisions. This year, our draftsman, in regard to two Clauses, Clases 7 and 9, although the provisions were in substance exactly the same as they have been in previous Post Office Sites Bills, adopted a somewhat shorter and simpler phraseology. No exception was taken in this House or by the Select Committee to that phraseology, and I do not think there is any question at all that those Clauses as they were drafted gave effect to the intention. But the House of Lords has certain model Clauses for Private Bills, and it was there considered desirable to revert to the old form. All that has been done in regard to Clause 7 is to strike out the draft as it passed this House, and revert to the draft that was employed in previous Post Office Sites Bills, such as the one that we passed last year. There is no alteration of substance of any sort.

CLAUSE 9.—(As to taking parts of certain properties.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 27, leave out the Clause and insert a new Clause.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
What I said about the last Clause is practically true of this Clause also, but there is one slight difference I ought to mention. This is a Clause that empowers the Postmaster-General to take part of a scheduled property instead of the whole of it, and the House of Lords, in reverting to the old form, has reinserted these words:
If such portions can, in the opinion of the tribunal to whom the question of disputed compensation is submitted, be severed from the remainder of those properties without material detriment thereto.
It is a little safeguard in favour of those people whose property we are taking. As a matter of fact it does not make the slightest difference in this Bill at all, because this Clause only refers to one particular property mentioned in the second Schedule. That purchase has already been completed by agreement, and the property is only included in the Bill because there is some doubt as to the title of the vendor. Therefore I think I am still quite accurate in claiming that there is no difference in substance between this new Clause and what we passed the other day. It is merely a drafting matter.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Not having the Bill, and not having anticipated the discussion, one relies with confidence on what the Noble Lord has said about this Clause dealing only with one property, and therefore it makes no material difference. But there are few more difficult questions that can be considered than those relating to severance and taking part only of properties, and the decision whether the taking of a part instead of the whole does or does not damage the owners. It has always been one of the most difficult questions in arbitrations under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and it raises a very material point of principle. The application in this case may be simple and may make no difference, but the
emergence of this particular Amendment at this stage adds considerable weight to the protest I made just now.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Guildford and Hambledon, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 8th day of July, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Newton Abbot and Totnes, in the county of Devon, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 8th day of July, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Scarborough, the urban district of Scalby, and the rural district of Scarborough, in the North Riding of the county of York, and the urban district of Filey, in the East Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 13th day of July, 1927, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. LOUGHER: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
When this Bill came up for Second Reading it met with the general approval of the House, and it received its Second Reading without a Division. When it reached the Committee stage many Amendments were submitted to meet the views expressed on the Second Reading, and the Bill passed through the Committee stage with the unanimous wish that it should receive facilities for Third Reading.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I do not think the House ought to allow this Bill to go through without understanding fully what it contains. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I do not know whether there is going to be any statement made before the Division is taken as to what this Bill contains, and I am not at all sure that hon. Members, even those who cry "Agreed," know the changes that have taken place in this Bill since it received a Second Reading. In this case, as in others, hon. Members have not had time to make themselves familiar with what is in the Bill. I have only just received the Bill. Therefore, I am compelled, in what I have to say, to rely upon what I have heard as to the proceedings in Committee. If what I have heard is accurate, I desire to make a very strong protest against the attempt to rush this Bill through with practically no discussion. I understand that the Bill deals with road transport lighting and is designed to secure safety on the roads. As the hon. Member has said, during the course of the Second Reading Debate there was no opposition to this Bill, but the Bill in one material aspect has been very considerably altered since it left this House and went to Committee. I do not think the hon. Member has made any mention of that. I noticed that when the hon. Member was speaking his friends were urging him not to be too long. Hon. Gentlemen around him were casting apprehensive glances at the clock, because they thought, perhaps, that if any discussion were started and the hon. Member enlarged upon its provisions, it might become necessary for hon. Members to reply, and the 15 or 16 minutes that remained for discussion might elapse without a Division being taken. I would like to ask one or two questions of the hon. Member with regard to this Bill, and particularly with regard to the changes that have been made in Committee. I should like to ask the hon. Member and those who are responsible for promoting the Bill whether they have approached the authorities in this country who are more particularly concerned with the care of transport and the safety of the roads. If they have approached them, I should like to know whether they have received favourable answers regarding this Bill. For instance,
has the Automobile Association been approached?

Mr. LOUGHER indicated assent.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Has the Royal Automobile Club been approached?

Mr. LOUGHER indicated assent.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Let me put a further question to the hon. Member. I understand that during the progress of this Bill through Committee one substantial change has been made. Is it or is it not a fact that towards the end of the Committee stage an hon. Member—I rather think it was the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton)—moved an Amendment providing that vehicles which are used for agricultural purposes, or in connection with agriculture, should only carry one light, and that at the front? That is now in the Bill, I believe. If that is substantially accurate, it does raise an important point. This Bill is useless, or not as useful as it should be, unless it provides for greater safety on the roads. That is one of its main purposes. As a modest motorist with a certain amount of experience of driving on country roads, I say that, if you are going to lay down that for every class of vehicle except one, there shall be lights carried both at the front and at the rear in order to prevent the possibility of dangerous or fatal accidents, then you are rendering all your precautions nugatory, and destroying all you have done if you allow an exception in the case of one class of vehicles, vehicles which move at a slow pace, which are very often very considerable in bulk and very heavy, and which are very often to be found in those second-class and minor roads that are, from their nature, narrow and not straight. This particular kind of vehicle is just the kind of vehicle that is found in the country lane, and the country lane, which turns and winds between hedges, is the most dangerous type of road in the country. If you allow this class of vehicle to use these roads and carry only one light, you are rendering nugatory all the provisions of this Bill.
I do not know whether the hon. Members who are in charge of the Bill have taken the precautions I suggested, and have approached the local authorities. I do know that the authorities concerned with the safety of those using
the roads were very concerned about this Amendment. The introduction of this Amendment in the Bill alters its character entirely, and it is not right that hon. Members should move the Third Reading at a time when there are very few minutes left for discussion. I wonder that, in those circumstances, they should attempt to procure the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind with such a substantial change in it. I did not notice when I rose that the Minister of Transport was preparing to rise in order to give an opinion on this Bill. During the whole course of this Parliament the right hon. Gentleman has been introducing small Measures designed to improve the various conditions under which motor and other vehicular traffic is carried on in this country. Here is a very important Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is in his place. I was prepared to give him his chance to speak, but he was not, apparently, prepared to take his chance. He was prepared to let this Bill slip through. Therefore, I had to take his chance from him. I had, however inadequately and imperfectly, to take the right hon. Gentleman's place. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that it is his primary duty, or one of his primary duties, to secure the safety of those who travel by road, but if the right hon. Gentleman, being in his place, is not prepared to carry out that duty, then others, who may be less competent, less able, and less effective in their methods of addressing the House, must be prepared to do it for him. It is a very strange thing that an attempt should have been made to carry without discussion the Third Reading of this Bill, when there has been a very substantial alteration made in the Committee upstairs, and hon. Members who were not on the Committee have had no chance of knowing what went on.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I hope that I shall be able to allay the fears of the hon. Member. This Bill received the unanimous support of the Committee. There was only one Division, although there were 80 Amendments. The Automobile Association had been consulted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Mr. Lougher), and I understand that all their wishes have been acceded to.
Without any Division, the concession to agricultural vehicles was given. The Committee was unanimously in favour of the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading

Mr. KELLY: The Minister of Transport tells us that the Automobile Association has been consulted, but he does not tell us whether any of the other associations whose members use the roads have been consulted. Have the cyclists' associations been consulted in regard to the Measure—The National Cyclists' Union, or the Cyclists' Touring Club? It looks as if those who use motor vehicles are people who imagine that the roads are made for them and them alone. I would ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to give us an explanation of some of the Clauses.

It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday, 8th November.

Orders of the Day — BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) ACT, 1926.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order, dated 12th July, 1927, made by the Minister of Health under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, and entitled the Chester-le-Street Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1927, be annulled.
No one regrets more than I the fact that I have to move this Motion at this late hour, because the House will agree that it is a subject worthy of more time for discussion than can now be given to it. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that before every Debate that has taken place on the question of the extension of the period of office of appointed guardians a report has been presented to this House of the stewardship of these appointed guardians, and hon. Members have been able to form an opinion as to whether an extension should be granted or not. A fortnight ago it was announced in the Northern newspapers, in an interview with the appointed guardians of Chester-le-Street, that this Report was ready, and it hinted darkly at further revelations concerning the old
guardians. If that Report is ready I think this House should have had an opportunity of reading it before this Debate took place. In the case of West Ham two Reports were presented before the Debate took place, and I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the fact that this Report is ready, that it will be issued after the House rises—and apparently this is deliberately arranged—I want to ask you whether in view of all these questionable manœuvres you will consider whether it is worth while spending public money on the publication of this Report, the publication of which is deliberately delayed to exclude the House of Commons from discussion of the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think there is any point in it which calls for my intervention. It may be a very good argument for the hon. Member to use in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member has himself chosen the date on which to bring forward this Address.

Mr. LAWSON: I deliberately refrained from putting my Motion down because it was stated that this Report was ready. I waited until the last Parliamentary day in order that this Report, which I am informed is ready, could be printed, and I ask you, therefore, whether you could not consider the withholding of public money for the publication of this Report, which is apparently deliberately designed to take place after the House rises.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in my power to do that.

Mr. LAWSON: I object to the extension of the period of office of these appointed guardians for two reasons. This is a violation of the principles of democratic government at a time when we can ill afford to interfere with these principles; at a time when they are being challenged in this country and other parts of the world. It is not only an interference with the principle of the election of their own representatives by the people, but it must not be forgotten that these appointed guardians are not responsible to the people in the locality. Apparently they are not responsible to the Ministry of Health any more than other guardians. Elected guardians can be criticised and dealt with by the
electors in their area, but appointed guardians cannot be dealt with. When we put questions to the Minister of Health he says, "No, I have no more to do with them than with other guardians." Therefore these persons are apparently in an independent position, free from any control whatever. I would draw attention to this fact: In the Chester-le-Street area these appointed guardians apparently make a principle of giving as relief the magnificent sum of 8s. for a woman and 2s. for each child. In many cases men do not get anything at all. I know it will be said that there are exceptions and that the guardians do not carry out that rule rigidly. Let me give a type of exception.
I was informed quite recently of the very sad case of a man who had served the country well in the War. There were the man, his wife and two children. At first sight I thought I could give a little aid indirectly, apart from the guardians, so I went to see the man, who was said to be in a bad state of health. He was dead. The man had shrapnel wounds, but received no pension, and he died from an internal complaint approximating to cancer. A sadder household I never visited. I was informed that all that was going into that house, including the relief from the guardians, was 27s. a week. There was 6s. 9d. to be paid in rent, so that £1 a week was left for four persons. Surely that was a case where the bowels of compassion might be stirred more than usual and induce the guardians to give extra consideration. I mentioned the case to the Minister a fortnight or three weeks ago and I have never had an answer from him. Is there in the House anyone who, if he were in the position of a guardian and had to deal with an exceptional case of that kind, would think that 27s. a week was anything like enough for a family in such circumstances? If that is the treatment meted out by the appointed guardians in exceptional cases, I leave it to the imagination of the House to conceive what is the regular treatment meted out to people in that particular neighbourhood.
It does not matter whether one approaches it in a friendly way, and whether one wants to be helpful in the general administration; it is a case of "Hands off! We are here to cut down expenditure." If hon. Members could
see the obvious condition of the people, the dilapidation in body and clothes such as I have seen there, I am sure they would make an investigation into the area. I think the Minister of Health himself, if he were to go there, would not be satisfied with what is going on, but it is the logical outcome of his own action, and he is seeking an extension of it. There has been a lot of criticism of the 'cutely-manœuvred report which was issued in the early part of this year. Let me tell the House what has happened. During the War, there was a large encampment built at Birtley, where thousands of Belgian refugees were housed. After the War there were ex-soldiers who could not find houses; they came from various parts of the North of England, and they took possession of the houses. The Ministry of Labour afterwards settled 200 men there as trainees.
It may be said that the board of guardians had power to send those men back to their own areas, but who at that time could have sent those ex-service men back to their own areas? Then some of the national factories took over the place and brought in 250 families, and they failed in their effort. Those families were left there. Those people, in many cases, are lying there yet, resting upon the guardians. Take the general position in the area. In Birtley district, for something like 18 months, there were nearly 5,000 unemployed. I need not go into the facts about the collieries there, but anyone who investigates the circumstances will find that if there is anyone to blame for the closing down of the collieries, the men are certainly not to blame. I could give the House most remarkable stories of the readiness of the men to submit to reduction after reduction, in order to keep the collieries going. Only recently, the company gave the men an agreement that no reductions would be asked for during a six months' period. At the end of three months the company said they could not carry on unless there was a 10 per cent. reduction, and, despite the agreement, the men conceded the 10 per cent. reduction. That is the spirit in which the men have dealt with the question.
At the present time many collieries are closed and about four are on the verge of closing, and the state of the area is
indeed lamentable. There was a time when the people who were at work could help the unemployed out of their wages. They cannot do so now. I am not exaggerating when I say that less than half the men in Durham are day-wage men, whose earnings are 6s. 8d. a day and in this union, taking the pits which are closed and those which are on short time, the adult man working in and about the mines, has not for months now earned more than 20s. a week. When one considers the long-sustained strain upon the resources of these people and their present condition, when one considers that they are an industrious people who like to dress well and to look after themselves, when one sees how they are being affected even in their areas and appearance, one is forced to the conclusion that this House should think twice before extending this Order and continuing the administration of people who will give a woman 8s. a week and children 2s. a week in such circumstances. I ask the Minister and the House to give serious consideration to the effects of the working of this Order. I know that expenditure has been reduced apparently—so we are told—and in the long run, I agree, there probably is a reduction. But I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a gain commensurate with the loss of manhood and womanhood which is taking place in that union. On another occasion I would have gone into this question in greater detail, but I assure the House that the people feel very strongly on this subject. That feeling is not confined to those who are receiving inadequate relief or those who want relief and cannot get it. The whole population feel very strongly, and if the Minister were to go there he would find that the people not of the political faith of the ex-guardians view the administration of the appointed guardians and the operation of this Order with sentiments far from those of satisfaction.

Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Motion.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. CHAMBERLAIN): The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) began by expressing some dissatisfaction because no report has been published by the appointed guardians for Chester-le-Street since the last one issued, which carried
their story down to the end of December last.

Mr. LAWSON: No, but because it has been publicly stated that the report has been issued.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All that I can say is that they have not signed their report, and it is therefore impossible for me to present it to the House, but I might point out that as the term of office of the guardians does not expire until 29th August, it would have been quite open to me not to have made this Order now, but to have waited until after this House had risen. In that case, of course, the report would have been published in time for the hon. Member to see it, but I thought it was more in accordance with the spirit of the Act that I should make the Order now, so as to give the hon. Member his opportunity of making a protest instead of waiting until two months out of the six had passed before he could say anything about it. I am sure he will believe me that I have not deliberately kept anything back nor asked the guardians to do so. At any rate, I shall be able, I think, to give the House some information which will carry the procedings of these guardians down rather further than the report published last December.
What the House has to consider is whether the work of the appointed Guardians has now been carried so far that it can safely be handed over to somebody else, and in order to form a judgment on that question, I think it is desirable, first, to consider the financial position. The financial position at the end of December last, is described on page 6 of the report of the Guardians, for which it will be seen that at the beginning of this year the total liabilities of the Union amounted to £231,000. Of that, they owed the bank £104,600, about £5,000 is represented by unpresented or unreceived cheques, and £121,000 was owing to the Minister of Health. They pointed out that they had, in preparing their estimates for the half year ending 31st March last, precepted for an amount equivalent to a rate of 6s. in the £, which, however, did not provide for any repayment of principal; and they further stated that they had received a supplementary call from the County Clerk, which they had not anticipated, of £19,184, equivalent to an additional rate
of ls. l½d. Since then they have been able, owing to the reduction in the expenditure, to meet the call of the County Clerk for £19,184, without making any further demand upon the ratepayers. In the month of March they were able to make arrangements with the bank and with the Ministry of Health about the repayment of their debts, and they arranged to pay, and they have since paid, £25,200 to the bank by 31st March, and £24,000 to the Ministry of Health by 30th June. They also, in making their estimates for the next half year, ending 30th September next, precepted for an amount equivalent to a rate of 4s. 6d. in the £, or 1s. 6d. less than the preceding half year, and in that way they were able to bring relief to a heavily burdened industrial district. The House will see that there still remains to be paid off £82,000 to the bank and £97,000 to the Ministry of Health. It has been arranged that those sums shall be paid off by instalments. They will complete the repayment of the debt to the bank by March 1929, and then they begin the repayment to the Ministry of Health and complete that by March 1931. I think it is important for the future financial stability of the Union that those engagements should be fulfilled, and I feel, and I think the House will feel, that this is not the time to swop horses, but that the Guardians should be allowed to continue along the path which they have begun.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Are these Guardians to continue in office till 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I did not say that. I said that was the arrangement they had made. How has this reduction been effected?

Mr. RICHARDSON: At the cost of flesh and blood.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is only fair to say that to some extent the Guardians have been relieved by the operation of the Contributory Pensions Act. I am informed that owing to that Act some £150 a week of reduction in their expenditure has been effected. No doubt also there is an improvement in the general condition of the district since the date when they took office [Interruption]. The time at which they took office was the 30th August, 1926. Conditions must be better now than they were then.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is no credit to them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was saying that those are circumstances which must not be attributed to anything done by the Guardians, but I think the main factor in bringing about the reduction has been the change of policy on the part of the new Guardians. They had adopted the principles which have been adopted by other Guardians in past times in the careful examination of each case and the endeavour to deal with it according to its merits, and a determination not to subsidise wages but to give relief in cases of real destitution, and on such a scale as will not take away the encouragement to go and find work.
In January, the number of persons in receipt of relief, as shown in the report I have alluded to, was 8,349. By the 30th June it had come down to 3,291 and the weekly expenditure of £1,755 in January had come down to £846. I think it is also interesting to note that whereas the number of unemployed on relief per 10,000 of the population was, in April, 1925, 285, and that in April, 1926, that was just before the General Strike, it had risen to 846, it is now 133, which is below the average of the whole of England and Wales. I frankly admit that economies may be too dearly bought. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"]. No doubt Hon. Members believe that is so in this case. But they believe it because they want to believe it. The Hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has spoken of hard cases and mentioned one in particular of which he has sent me particulars. Of course, when you are dealing with thousands of cases per week you would expect to find in any Union that here and there there will be particular individual cases where through oversight perhaps some error occurs. There are a certain number of people who perhaps have been rather hardly used, but I think the House ought to realise that in this particular Union, where, without any offence to the Hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, I must say there are people who are very anxious, the total number of complaints brought to my notice is only 17. In the particular district referred to by the Hon. member there were only 13 cases of complaints. Supposing all those cases are justified, we ought to consider how many cases have been dealt with by the guardians
in this one district. No less than 44,487 cases have been dealt with, and only 13 complaints have been made.

Mr. LAWSON: I sent the Rt. Hon. Gentleman three or four cases and all he said was that the guardians were dealing with them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I sent those cases on to the guardians, as I should do in the case of any other union. Of course, the hon. Member may not be satisfied with that, but I would like to point out that the complaints amounted to about one per cent.

Mr. LANSBURY: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that 44,000 cases had been dealt with?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. LANSBURY: That includes repetitions. Why not give the actual cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid hon. Members opposite do not realise what the conditions are and how far the present conditions differ from what has happened in the past. I acknowledge the great restraint and moderation shown by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, and I want to follow him in that respect. The hon. Member said that there had been in that union a dilapidation in body and clothes of the people such as he had never seen before, and which he declared was unprecedented, but I do not think that statement will bear examination. You cannot compare the state of things in 1927 with what took place in the year 1926. If you go back to 1925, I find that in February of that year the average number of persons receiving out-relief in this union was 3,114, which is almost the same as for the period ending 30th June this year, when the total was 3,191. Up to June, 1927, the weekly expenditure, which in January was £1,755, went down to £846. In February, 1925, the weekly expenditure was £824. In regard to the number of persons receiving out-relief and the weekly amount paid, we have practically got back to the conditions existing in 1925. Of course, I can understand the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street feeling dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, but I think he has exaggerated the amount of departure from what has been the ordinary
method of procedure in the past. I think the guardians who are now in office have made considerable reductions of expenditure in the past, and can be expected to make in the future very considerable reductions and economies in a union which was fast drifting into bankruptcy, and I do not think it is advisable to remove them, more especially when no substantial evidence of hardships has been brought forward.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I am more than ever convinced that we ought not to agree to the reappointment of the appointed Guardians in Chester-le-Street; but, before dealing with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, may I put this point to the House? I am going to assert that the right hon. Gentleman under the legislation which he obtained, had no right to force from office the old Guardians, and that, in continuing the new ones in office, he is acting illegally. When the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill was before this House, I tried, and other Members on this side of the House tried, to find out what the words "in default" meant. We were assured that in fact "in default" meant in default financially—in other words, that the board of guardians could not pay its way. As regards two out of the three boards which have been superseded, that was the position; but in this House the right hon. Gentleman himself made it perfectly clear that he was not superseding the Chester-le-Street Guardians because they could not pay their way, but because they had, in his view, acted illegally. I suggest that he had no right to supersede the Guardians on that ground. And, if he had no right to do it then—and I am sorry the matter was not brought to the attention of the House at the proper time—he has no right now to extend the period of life of his nominees by a further six months. If it be true, as we were told in the House, that boards of guardians were to be superseded only because they were in default, then, though it was true that the Chester-le-Street Guardians were not paying their way, he had no right whatever to supersede them on the ground on which he did supersede them, as he declared in this House.
But I would go on to say that the appointed Guardians in Chester-le-Street are utterly unfit to exercise the responsibilities of guardians, and I say that on the basis of the only report that they have published. Their first Report was, I think, the most disgraceful document which ever emanated from His Majesty's Stationery Office. I say nothing about the kind of language in which it was couched. I have always expected to see documents published by the Government expressed in decent and dignified English; but, if the right hon. Gentleman appoints half-educated guardians, I suppose they will issue half-educated reports. That Report, however, was not merely disgraceful because of the manner in which it was compiled; it was a disgrace to the state that it should have been responsible for the publication of this document, because it was obviously an ex parte document, because it was a biased document, because it made charges of the most absurd kind which could not be substantiated, and because, as I should be prepared to prove if this were the occasion, in a very large number of particulars it was grossly inaccurate. If it be true—as I say, and am prepared to prove, it is—that that Report was ex parts, biased, and inaccurate in important particulars, then I say that the three people nominated by the right hon. Gentleman are not fit to hold their office.
The matter, however, goes further than that. I have no high opinion of the appointed guardians in West Ham, but I have an even lower opinion of the appointed guardians in Chester-le-Street. When the matter of the continuation in office of the appointed guardians in West Ham was under consideration, we did at least have the second Report of that body. We are asked to-night to continue in office three people nominated by the right hon. Gentleman of whose work we have had no record in this House. We have had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman, but we have not had any statement from that body. I understand that a week or two ago their report was completed. The right hon. Gentleman says it has not been signed. I accept his word for it, though I believe he has a copy with him. But why has it not been signed when these guardians must have
known that their term of office expired on 29th August, and when the matter must be raised in the House to-night, if it was to be raised at all? The right hon. Gentleman has treated us unfairly. It was his duty to see that the report was available before the Recess in order that the House might form a judgment on the six months' work of the appointed guardians. Why have we not had it? It may be the right hon. Gentleman himself is ashamed of it. I should not be surprised at that. It may be as bad a document as the first. It may be the Board of Guardians themselves would be ashamed to publish it in time to be discussed in the House. When we are asked, as we are by the Order now on the Table of the House, to prolong the life of these people for six months we are morally entitled to have before us a record of their work. We have had no such record. It was typical of the right hon. Gentleman that his statement began on finance and ended on finance. He spoke about a reduction of 1s. 6d. in the pound which would be a relief to the ratepayers in the area—not a word of sympathy as regards the people who need that sustenance. We have not had in the case of the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians any statement from the Minister of Health that showed that he had the slightest sympathy with the mass of people who, do what they will, cannot get work.
What is the position to-day in the Durham coalfield? The right hon. Gentleman has quoted statistics. I took no note of them. I was not interested in them. I know, and many hon. Members know, far better than the Minister, that Durham to-day is a dying county, that you have large numbers of people who can walk their shoe leather off day by day and could not get work. No one dare say that any miner who is out of work could get work in Durham or anywhere else. You have in Durham a large number of people for whom work is not available. Those people are citizens of this country. Many of them served in the Great War. Many of them are the children of men who died in the Great War.
We are in the midst of a very serious situation in the coal industry. The Durham coalfield is one of the most afflicted coalfields in this country, not through the fault of people in Durham,
but because of circumstances over which Durham has no control. With that situation you have a problem that calls for real statesmanship. Are Members of this House going to say that these people have got to wither and die? Do they say that? Nobody on the opposite benches dare say that. The last time I addressed this House there was one hon. Member who had the hardihood to say that children in receipt of war pensions should subsidise their step-parents, but nobody in this House is prepared to say that these people in Durham should be left to wither and die. There is a definite moral responsibility resting on the community towards these people. What is the situation? It is about the same as it was in 1925. What have these Guardians done? As far as I can see, very little. They have profited, with no effort on the part of themselves, to the extent of £150 a week from the Widows' Pensions Act. So would have the elected Board of Guardians, if they had still been there. You have, roughly, as many cases as you had two years ago. What is the saving? The saving has been at the expense of those people who are legitimate cases, because if they were not doubly proved legitimate cases the present Board of Guardians would not have admitted them as cases. You have, not-withstanding all the saving and the microscopic analysis of the three Guardians, as many cases as two years ago. And you have saved on the rates. What does it mean? It means that you have saved on the rates at the expense of those people who are down and out.
As far as I know, there has never been a serious difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the elected Board of Guardians about rates of relief. There may have been minor differences, but there has been no substantial difference. The point on which they finally quarrelled was the question of the giving of relief to single miners last year. It was not a question of extravagance. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman, either by implication or explicitly, is responsible for the rates of relief which were given by the elected Board of Guardians. Now we are told that there has been a saving of eighteenpence in the pound which means that the rate of relief that has been given in these cases
under the existing Board of Guardians is grossly below the rate of relief that was given by the elected Board of Guardians, with whom, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied. If that be so, I submit that the present non-elected, nominated Board of Guardians are not doing their duty. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the relief to the ratepayers. The function of a Board of Guardians is not the relief of the ratepayers. The legal duty of a Board of Guardians is the relief of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman's emphasis has been on the relief that has been given to the ratepayers in the area. It is a relief which has been given at the expense of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman rather questioned the statement made by my hon. Friend, the member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), as to the general appearance, the clothing, the standard of life of the people of Durham. We have always known that the poor help the poor. That is chiefly how the poor have been helped, but the situation to-day is that, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's own action, as a result of his nominating three Conservatives to act as guardians in that area, the rate of relief has been reduced and the people who would have helped those who went for relief are so poor that they cannot maintain themselves. What does that mean? It means that, while with one hand the right hon. Gentleman is patting the Chester-le-Street Guardians on the back, with the other he is undoing all the work which the public health service for which he is responsible is trying to do. It means that the community is going to pay a heavy bill for this enforcement of niggardly, mean, miserable rates of relief for the poor in this area.
If it were within my power, I would bring the three appointed guardians to the Bar of the House rather than give them an extension of life for six months. I think, from what I have been able to find out from such reports as I have been able to see, that they are unfit to exercise the important office of guardians of the poor. Yet we are asked to-night to continue them as guardians for six months. The right hon. Gentleman claims a certain credit that he has not allowed it to slip by until the House was up. I never thought he would have
dreamed of such a thing. What he is doing is to ask the House to take the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend to take a decision without the evidence on which to make it. I say that is unfair. I am against the publication by the State of the documents of his particular nominees on Boards of Guardians, but, if we are to continue them in office by the act of this House, we are entitled to know what they are doing. We do not even know from the right hon. Gentleman whether they have carried out the ordinary duties of guardians under the Poor Law. All we know is that they have saved the rates to the extend of 18d. in the pound. They have done that, not by carrying out their legitimate duties, but by evading their legitimate duties. They have done it the expense of the poor.
While I am sorry that this should be the occasion, I am glad to make this protest against the policy of these guardians to make the poor keep the poor or, if they cannot, to make the poor plunge deeper into poverty. That is the whole policy of this Government in Measure after Measure in this House. Now to-night some thousands of people in this single union will have their future determined by the decision of this House. I make no appeal to hon. Members opposite, because it is useless, but I do wish very sincerely and earnestly to enter, on behalf of my friends and myself, my emphatic protest against the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to keep these people in office, because it is my firm conviction that they have not carried out their statutory duties. It is the duty of

the right hon. Gentleman to give again to the people of Chester-le-Street the chance as free citizens to elect their own guardians. I protest also because the right hon. Gentleman is a member of a Government that is a party to this deliberate degradation of helpless people who, whatever they may do, cannot find work to maintain themselves. I am all for work. I would rather have work than maintenance a thousand times. But I say, if work is not available, and no body can say it is available in County Durham, it is the duty, and it ought to be the proud privilege of the country, to see that people willing to work and who have given good service should be honourably maintained. The effect of the maintenance of this Order can only be that the poor in Chester-le-Street will become more miserably poor than ever before. The rising generation in Chester-le-Street is being deprived of a fair opportunity of a decent life. The right hon. Gentleman's own efforts to develop the public health Service and care for the health of the people are being defeated by this act of his to-night, to continue these irresponsible guardians who, unfortunately are mere political partisans in office for a further six months, to the detriment of the poor amongst our people.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order, dated 12th July, 1927, made by the Minister of Health under The Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, and entitled the Chester-le-Street Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1927, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 143.

Division No. 313.]
AYES.
[11.58 p.m.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bormondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Whiteley, W.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Dennison, R.
Lindley, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Apsley, Lord
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pilcher, G.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, J. R.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Betterton, Henry B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rye, F. G.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Campbell, E. T.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Storry-Deans, R.


Christie, J. A.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Clayton, G. C.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
MacIntyre, Ian
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Colfox, Major William Phillips
McLean, Major A
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Colman, N. C. D.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watts, Dr. T.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fraser, Captain Ian
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Womersley, W. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Gates, Percy
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Pennefather, Sir John



Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perkins, Colonel E. K.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr.
DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.